{"cached_at":"2026-10-10T09:51:43.376905+00:00","cl_docket_id":"74661488","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","id":74661488,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/","court_id":"cand","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9095/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-17T19:36:56.564502-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-09T12:49:31.687106-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Alex G. Tse","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2026-08-17","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-07","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc","docket_number":"3:26-mc-80261","docket_number_core":"2680261","docket_number_raw":"3:26-mc-80261","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"mc","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"AGT","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"476392","cause":"Civil Miscellaneous Case","nature_of_suit":"890 Other Statutory Actions","jury_demand":"None","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2026-08-17T19:36:56.557358-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23637734/","id":23637734,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16138692/","attorney_id":16138692,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","docket_id":74661488,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16138692/","attorney_id":16138692,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","docket_id":74661488,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16138693/","attorney_id":16138693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","docket_id":74661488,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16138694/","attorney_id":16138694,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","docket_id":74661488,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16138695/","attorney_id":16138695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","docket_id":74661488,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","docket_id":74661488,"name":"Respondent","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-09-02T19:28:32.041706-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-02T19:28:32.041717-07:00","name":"OAI International, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23637733/","id":23637733,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16017396/","attorney_id":16017396,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","docket_id":74661488,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","docket_id":74661488,"name":"Petitioner","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-09-02T19:28:31.980706-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-02T19:28:31.980717-07:00","name":"Neural AI, LLC","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480884223/","id":480884223,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496601745/","id":496601745,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/19/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-07T18:03:36.030777-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-08T09:21:20.245109-07:00","sha1":"df5449ff626eee47257c18638cca222cb9a2f98f","page_count":4,"file_size":683442,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.19.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 19 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com\n Attorneys for Respondent OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n NEURAL AI, LLC,\u200b )\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n )\u200b\n Petitioner,\u200b )\u200b OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.\u2019S\n )\u200b RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER\n v.\u200b )\u200b OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2026\n )\u200b\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\u200b )\u200b\n )\u200b\n Respondent.\u200b )\u200b\n _________________________________________\u200b)\u200b\n\n\n Respondent OAI International, Inc. hereby responds to the Court\u2019s order of September 30, 2026,\n\n asking whether OAI International consents to transfer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Docket No. 18 at 2.\n\n OAI International does not consent to transfer, for the following reasons.\n\n First, the potential \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d referenced by the Court are the result of Neural\u2019s\n\n litigation choices. The order noted \u201cthe complexity of the underlying action, plus the fact that all but\n\n one of the nine motions to compel were filed in the issuing court,\u201d as possibly \u201cexceptional\n\n circumstances\u201d allowing transfer. Docket No. 18 at 2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). A complex underlying\n\n matter is not an exceptional circumstance by itself. E.g., CMB Expert, LLC v. Atteberry, No. 14-51,\n\n 2014 WL 2197840, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2014) (factors including \u201cthat the underlying action is\n\n \u2018fairly complex\u2019\u201d are not \u201cexceptional circumstances warranting a Rule 45(f) transfer.\u201d); Gilbert v. Rare\n\n Moon Media, LLC, No. 15-217, 2016 WL 141635, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 2016) (\u201cComplicated cases\n\n are not \u2018exceptional,\u2019 and the court understands the issues here.\u201d); Isola USA Corp. v. Taiwan Union\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 1 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.\u2019S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 19 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n Tech. Corp., No. 15-94003, 2015 WL 5934760, at *3 (D. Mass. June 18, 2015) (although \u201cthere is no\n\n question that the District of Arizona is more familiar with the procedural and substantive aspects of the\n\n underlying patent litigation,\u201d that \u201ccannot be what Congress meant when it required a finding of\n\n exceptional circumstances, otherwise the exception would swallow the rule\u201d), R. & R. adopted, 2015\n\n WL 5944286 (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2015). Thus, as the Court notes, any exceptional circumstances must\n\n come from the additional fact that \u201call but one of the nine motions to compel were filed in the issuing\n\n court\u201d (Docket No. 18 at 2)\u2014and that resulted from Neural\u2019s litigation choices. Neural waited almost a\n\n year to serve subpoenas, and then refused to negotiate the scope of the subpoenas it served. Opp. at 2:24\n\n to 3:8, 4:10 to 5:9. As a result, many non-parties declined to produce documents, and Neural filed a\n\n wave of ancillary actions at the same time. Id. at 5:11-20. If the Court finds that Neural\u2019s motions are\n\n \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Rule 45(f), it will give litigants a perverse incentive to bring a\n\n coordinated wave of discovery motions instead of resolving disputes with non-parties. \u201cCourts should\n\n avoid rulings creating \u2018perverse incentives that discourage useful settlements and encourage protracted\n\n litigation.\u2019\u201d United States v. Patrol Servs., Inc., 202 F. App\u2019x 357, 361 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United\n\n States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1343 (11th Cir. 2004)). Transfer would do exactly that.\n\n Second, Neural failed to seek transfer and it is now too late. \u201cThe proponent of transferring the\n\n motion to the issuing court bears the burden of showing \u2018exceptional circumstances.\u2019\u201d Music Grp.\n\n Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Does, 82 F. Supp. 3d 979, 984 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting W. Schwarzer et\n\n al., California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial \u00b6 11:2290.1 (Rutter Group 2014)).\n\n Neural did not try to show exceptional circumstances or address the burden analysis, and thus \u201cwaived\n\n this issue.\u201d St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc. v. Janssen-Counotte, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1150, 1169 (D. Or. 2015).\n\n Third, transfer would punish OAI International for doing the right thing. Neural first served\n\n subpoenas with places of compliance in Austin, Texas. OAI International had ironclad arguments that\n\n those places of compliance were deficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), which rendered those subpoenas\n\n invalid on their face. Docket No. 1-22 at 2. Rather than quietly preserving those arguments for an\n\n eventual motion, OAI identified these place-of-compliance arguments in its first meet-and-confer call\n\n with Neural, told Neural it was confident these arguments would prevail, and further told Neural it\n\n would not raise these arguments against subpoenas specifying places of compliance in San Francisco.\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 2 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.\u2019S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 19 Filed 10/07/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n Id. As a result, Neural served new subpoenas, specifying a valid place of compliance. Docket No. 1-6.\n\n Should the Court transfer this action, it would put OAI International in an objectively worse position\n\n than if it had kept quiet: still before the Western District, but without its ironclad arguments against\n\n invalid places of compliance. \u201c\u2018The prime concern\u2019 in deciding Rule 45(f) transfer motions \u2018should be\n\n avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing\n\n court is in a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions.\u2019\u201d Music Grp., 82 F. Supp. 3d at 984.\n\n \u201cTransfer is appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with the\n\n subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion.\u201d SharkDiver Consulting Inc. v. Gemini Direct\n\n LLC, No. 24-16, 2024 WL 2863508 at *1 (D. Ariz. June 6, 2024) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) advisory\n\n comm.\u2019s note to 2013 amend.) On these facts that cannot be so, and transfer would provide \u201cperverse\n\n incentives\u201d not to do the right thing when meeting and conferring. Patrol Servs., 202 F. App\u2019x at 361.\n\n The Court also ordered the parties to \u201cnotify the Court of any relevant developments in the\n\n related subpoena disputes.\u201d Docket No. 18 at 2. Neural filed nine ancillary actions, including this one.\n\n Opp. at 5:11-20. Neural has since dismissed four of these actions, leaving this one plus four others:\n\n Non-Party Case Number Date Filed Status\n Amazon.com, Inc. 7:26-mc-00241 June 24, 2026 Pending\n Microsoft Corp. 7:26-mc-00242 June 24, 2026 Pending\n Tesla, Inc. 7:26-mc-00318 August 17, 2026 Pending\n X.AI Corp. 7:26-mc-00319 August 17, 2026 Dismissed\n Meta Platforms, Inc. 7:26-mc-00322 August 18, 2026 Dismissed\n CoreWeave, Inc. 7:26-mc-00323 August 18, 2026 Dismissed\n Google, LLC 7:26-mc-00324 August 18, 2026 Pending\n Oracle Corp. 7:26-mc-00325 August 18, 2026 Dismissed\n\n OAI International does not have any information regarding these actions beyond their public docket\n\n entries. Should the information in this chart change, OAI International will file an updated version.\n\n Date: October 7, 2026 \u200b Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n\n \u200b \u2013 3 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.\u2019S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 19 Filed 10/07/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n \u200b WARREN LLP\n \u200b 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n \u200b San Francisco, California, 94114\n \u200b +1 (415) 895-2940\n \u200b +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n \u200b 24-221@cases.warrenllp.com\u200b\n \u200b\n \u200b Attorneys for OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 4 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.\u2019S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-08T09:21:20.127529-07:00","document_number":"19","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027759901","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response ( Non Motion )","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-07T18:03:36.007186-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-08T09:19:54.560329-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-07","time_filed":"17:30:02","entry_number":19,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":54,"description":"RESPONSE re 18 Order by OAI International, Inc.. (Warren, Matthew) (Filed on 10/7/2026) (Entered: 10/07/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479994498/","id":479994498,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495682634/","id":495682634,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/18/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-30T13:35:27.545581-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-07T04:11:23.073266-07:00","sha1":"a5ccb67ce3cc3fa70d1b00d3ce46b9da8510456c","page_count":2,"file_size":135765,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.18.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.18.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 18 Filed 09/30/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n\nNEURAL AI, LLC, Case No. 26-mc-80261-AGT\n Petitioner,\n ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL\n v.\n Re: Dkt. No. 1\nOAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\n Respondent.\n\n\n\n In the Western District of Texas, Neural AI, LLC (\u201cNAI\u201d), is suing NVIDIA Corp.\n\nfor patent infringement. See Neural AI, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 24-cv-00221-LS-DTG\n\n(W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2024). NAI alleges that NVIDIA\u2019s GPU accelerators and superchips\n\ninfringe three patents covering graphic-processor-based accelerator systems and methods.\n\nSee generally Dkt. 1-2 (complaint), 1-8 (infringement contentions).\n\n To determine how the accused products are deployed and configured, NAI is seeking\n\ndiscovery from NVIDIA\u2019s customers and end users. To that end, NAI subpoenaed nine com-\n\npanies: OAI International, Inc. (f/k/a Open AI, LLC), Amazon.com, Inc., Microsoft Corp.,\n\nCoreWeave, Inc., Oracle Corp., Tesla Inc., Google, LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., and x.AI\n\nCorp. All nine companies objected to the subpoenas, which prompted NAI to file nine\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 18 Filed 09/30/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\nmotions to compel. NAI filed eight of those motions in the Western District of Texas. See\n\nDkt. 7 at 9\u201310 (identifying case numbers). The ninth motion, against OAI International, NAI\n\nfiled here, in the Northern District of California. Dkt. 1.\n\n Given the complexity of the underlying action, plus the fact that all but one of the\n\nnine motions to compel were filed in the issuing court, this may be one of those exceptional\n\ncases in which the interests of justice favor transferring the pending motion to compel to the\n\nissuing court, in the Western District of Texas. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f).\n\n By October 7, 2026, the party subject to the subpoena, OAI International, shall notify\n\nthe Court of whether it consents to the transfer. While the motion to compel remains pending,\n\nthe parties shall notify the Court of any relevant developments in the related subpoena dis-\n\nputes. The Court vacates the October 2, 2026, hearing on the motion to compel.\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\nDated: September 30, 2026\n\n\n ______________________________\n Alex G. Tse\n United States Magistrate Judge\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-30T13:47:46.363970-07:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027723036","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-30T13:35:27.511165-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-07T04:11:23.055646-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-30","time_filed":"13:29:02","entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":52,"description":"ORDER Re: Motion to Compel by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse: regarding 1 Motion. (shy, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479964812/","id":479964812,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495652525/","id":495652525,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-30T11:36:19.463421-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-30T11:36:19.463450-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"1 - Terminate Hearings AND Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-30T11:36:19.441614-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-30T11:36:19.441643-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-30","time_filed":"11:09:29","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479957855/","id":479957855,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495645468/","id":495645468,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/17/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-30T11:11:26.225399-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-30T11:11:26.225412-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-30T11:11:26.182166-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-30T13:47:27.610254-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"***PLEASE DISREGARD THIS DOCKET ENTRY AS THE CORRESPONDING WRITTEN ORDER WAS NOT ATTACHED IN ERROR.*** ORDER Re: Motion to Compel by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse: regarding 1 Motion. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (shy, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2026) Modified on 9/30/2026 (shy, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478733256/","id":478733256,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494365563/","id":494365563,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/16/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-21T09:24:20.731913-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-21T09:24:20.731926-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"16","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-21T09:24:20.705199-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-21T09:24:20.711845-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":16,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S NOTICE RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARING. The parties are hereby notified that the hearing on 1 motion to compel is rescheduled to 10/2/2026 at 2:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom A, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (shy, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2026) (Entered: 09/18/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478603891/","id":478603891,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494232979/","id":494232979,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-18T18:02:49.718034-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-18T18:02:49.718048-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-18T18:02:49.707378-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-18T18:02:49.707390-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-18","time_filed":"17:43:23","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478448964/","id":478448964,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494074790/","id":494074790,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-17T17:01:07.864745-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-17T17:01:07.864753-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-17T17:01:07.854120-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-17T17:01:07.854130-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-17","time_filed":"16:44:04","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478448589/","id":478448589,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494074388/","id":494074388,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/15/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-17T16:46:12.006877-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-17T16:46:12.006887-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"15","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-17T16:46:11.966748-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-17T16:49:46.962112-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-17.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S NOTICE RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARING. The parties are hereby notified that the hearing on 1 motion to compel is rescheduled from 9/25/2026 to 10/2/2026 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom A, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (shy, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2026) (Entered: 09/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478441258/","id":478441258,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494066927/","id":494066927,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-17T15:34:13.561476-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-17T15:34:13.561484-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Set/Reset Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-17T15:34:13.550944-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-17T15:34:13.550954-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-17","time_filed":"15:04:08","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478437498/","id":478437498,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494063116/","id":494063116,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-17T15:05:42.660082-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-17T15:05:42.660091-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-17T15:05:42.642921-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-17T15:05:42.642930-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Set/Reset Hearing Motion Hearing set for 9/25/2026 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom A, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse. (shy, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478086364/","id":478086364,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493703550/","id":493703550,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/14/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-15T13:05:46.454649-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T22:06:39.409199-07:00","sha1":"f77848ef77289257e4a1d454ba512dd8dc719e99","page_count":2,"file_size":183251,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.14.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.14.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 14 Filed 09/15/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\nMatthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\nErika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\nDeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\nMadeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\nWARREN LLP\n2261 Market Street, No. 606\nSan Francisco, California, 94114\n+1 (415) 895-2940\n+1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com\nAttorneys for Respondent OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\nNEURAL AI, LLC,\u200b )\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n \u200b )\u200b\n\u200b Petitioner,\u200b )\u200b NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION\n\u200b )\u200b TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH\nv.\u200b )\u200b SUBPOENA SERVED ON THIRD-PARTY\n\u200b )\u200b OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.\nOAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\u200b )\u200b\n\u200b )\u200b\n\u200b Respondent.\u200b )\u200b Date: \u200b September 25, 2026\n\u200b \u200b )\u200b Time: \u200b 10:00 a.m. PDT\n_________________________________________\u200b)\u200b Courtroom:\u200b A \u2013 15th Floor\n\n When Petitioner Neural AI, LLC filed its pending motion, it failed to follow this Court\u2019s rule\n\nrequiring that all motions must be noticed for hearing when filed. Docket No. 1; see Civ. L.R. 7-2(a).\n\nRespondent OAI International, Inc. reminded Neural of its obligation to notice a hearing, but Neural did\n\nnot respond. When a moving party fails to notice a motion for hearing, the non-moving party may do\n\nso. E.g., Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 17-5928, 2023 WL 2176758, at *1 n.4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15,\n\n2023). OAI International therefore notices the pending motion for hearing as follows.\n\nTO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:\n\n PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on Friday, September 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon\n\nthereafter as this matter may be heard, before Magistrate Judge Alex Tse of the United States District\n\nCourt for the Northern District of California located at the Phillip Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden\n\nGate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102, Courtroom A, 15th Floor, respondent OAI International,\n\nInc., by and through its undersigned counsel, will oppose and hereby does oppose under the Constitution\n\n\n\u200b \u2013 1 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n NOTICE OF HEARING FOR MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 14 Filed 09/15/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\nof the United States, applicable statutes and laws, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure petitioner\u2019s\n\nmotion to compel compliance with its subpoenas.\n\n This opposition is based on this notice, all other matters of record filed with the Court in this\n\ncase, any argument at hearing of this matter, and such other materials the Court may consider.\n\nDate: September 15, 2026 \u200b Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com\n\n Attorneys for OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n \u2013 2 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n NOTICE OF HEARING FOR MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T13:55:09.270726-07:00","document_number":"14","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027651292","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Re-notice motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-15T13:05:46.434719-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T13:16:10.832743-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-15","time_filed":"12:54:30","entry_number":14,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":40,"description":"Renotice motion hearing re 1 MOTION for Hearing on September 25, 2026 filed byOAI International, Inc.. (Related document(s) 1 ) (Warren, Matthew) (Filed on 9/15/2026) (Entered: 09/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477451294/","id":477451294,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493045833/","id":493045833,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/13/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-09T16:13:39.065510-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T07:08:10.288880-07:00","sha1":"246af15a572cac32b7e96d83b45644e2e788afdb","page_count":19,"file_size":771569,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.13.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.13.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 1 of 19\n\n\n\nTanner Laiche\nCA State Bar No. 344342\n401 Union Street, Suite 3000\nSeattle, WA 98101\ntlaiche@susmangodfrey.com\n\nAttorney for Petitioner Neural AI, LLC\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n NEURAL AI, LLC, Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n\n Petitioner, NEURAL AI\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF\n ITS MOTION TO COMPEL\n v. COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA\n SERVED ON THIRD-PARTY OAI\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC., INTERNATIONAL, INC.\n\n Respondent. Principal case pending in Western District of\n Texas, Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-00221-LS-\n DTG\n\n\n\n\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 2 of 19\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nI. NAI\u2019S MOTION COMPLIES WITH THIS COURT\u2019S LOCAL RULES ......................... 2\n\n A. NAI\u2019s Motion Substantially Complies with Local Rule 37-2. ................................ 2\n\n B. Any Pro Hac Vice Issue Has Been Cured and Does Not Justify Denial................. 3\n\n C. NAI Gave Immediate Notice and Properly Effected Personal Service................... 4\n\nII. NAI\u2019S MOTION IS TIMELY ............................................................................................ 5\n\nIII. THE SUBPOENAS SEEK RELEVANT, PROPORTIONAL DISCOVERY ................... 7\n\nIV. OPENAI HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED UNDUE BURDEN .......................................... 9\n\n A. NAI Repeatedly Offered Less Burdensome Alternatives. .................................... 11\n\n B. OpenAI Provides Zero Evidence of Actual Burden. ............................................. 13\n\nV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 14\n\n\n\n\n i\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 3 of 19\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nAboveGEM, Inc. v. Organo Gold Mgmt., Ltd.,\n 2019 WL 3859012 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2019).......................................................................... 4\n\nEmcyte Corp. v. Apex Biologix, LLC,\n 2021 WL 5507219 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2021) .......................................................................... 4\n\nFG SRC LLC v. Xilinx, Inc.,\n 2022 WL 22997130 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2022) ........................................................................ 7, 8\n\nFreeman v. Giuliani,\n 2023 WL 4750552 (D.D.C. July 13, 2023) ............................................................................... 5\n\nHall v. Marriot Int\u2019l, Inc.,\n 2021 WL 1906464 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2021) ......................................................................... 13\n\nIn re Matsumoto,\n 2023 WL 6959279 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2023) ......................................................................... 10\n\nKim v. NuVasive, Inc.,\n 2011 WL 3844106 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) .......................................................................... 9\n\nL.G. Philips LCD Co. v. Tatung Co.,\n 2007 WL 869700 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2007) ............................................................................ 8\n\nMicro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., Inc.,\n 894 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................. 7\n\nMinkus Elec. Display Sys. Inc. v. Adaptive Micro Sys. LLC,\n 2011 WL 941197 (D. Del. Mar. 16, 2011) ............................................................................... 7\n\nMuhammad v. Koenig,\n 2026 WL 2296681 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2026)...................................................................... 2, 3\n\nNegotiated Data Sols. LLC v. Dell, Inc.,\n 2009 WL 733876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009) ............................................................................ 9\n\nPro. Programs Grp. v. Dep\u2019t of Com.,\n 29 F.3d 1349 (9th Cir. 1994)..................................................................................................... 2\n\nSanchez-Martinez v. Freitas,\n 2024 WL 4933339 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024) ............................................................................ 3\n\nSCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC,\n 580 U.S. 328 (2017) ............................................................................................................ 6, 10\n\n ii\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 4 of 19\n\n\n\nUniversal Dyeing & Printing, Inc. v. Zoetop Bus. Co.,\n 2023 WL 9004983 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2023) ........................................................................ 13\n\nWaller v. Jet Specialty, Inc.,\n 2024 WL 7050192 (W.D. Tex. 2024) ..................................................................................... 13\n\nYotta Techs. Inc. v. Evolve Bank & Tr.,\n 2025 WL 3496685 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2025) ............................................................................ 3\n\nRules\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 4 .............................................................................................................................. 4\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 5 .......................................................................................................................... 4, 5\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 45 .................................................................................................................... 4, 5, 6\n\nL.R. 11-3 ......................................................................................................................................... 4\n\nL.R. 37-2 ......................................................................................................................................... 2\n\nL.R. 37-3 ......................................................................................................................................... 6\n\nL.R. CV-16(e) ............................................................................................................................. 6, 7\n\n\n\n\n iii\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 5 of 19\n\n\n\n OpenAI\u2019s Opposition spends twenty pages trying to avoid a straightforward third-party\n\ndiscovery obligation without producing a single responsive document or offering a single witness. 1\n\nIts threshold objections fare no better than its merits arguments. OpenAI elevates curable\n\nprocedural issues over substance, insists NAI\u2019s motion was untimely even though OpenAI\n\nresponded to subpoenas\u2014twice\u2014refusing any production well in advance of the document-\n\ndiscovery cutoff, and attacks NAI for seeking customer evidence that NVIDIA itself told NAI it\n\nmust obtain from customers and end users. OpenAI then labels the subpoenas a \u201cfishing expedition\u201d\n\nwhile acknowledging that it uses accused NVIDIA products and that NAI\u2019s infringement theory\n\nconcerns how NVIDIA hardware and software are actually deployed together.\n\n OpenAI\u2019s burden argument rests on the same distortion. Despite devoting pages to supposed\n\nburden, OpenAI submits no declaration from anyone who actually knows what compliance would\n\nrequire. It identifies no custodians, repositories, collection volumes, estimated hours, or costs, and\n\ndescribes no collection it ever attempted. Instead, it inflates the subpoena on paper, most notably\n\nby repeating that NAI\u2019s definition lists more than 240 NVIDIA devices, as though OpenAI must\n\nconduct 240 separate investigations. It does not. Every request is limited to NVIDIA products\n\nOpenAI actually uses, leaving OpenAI only to identify that subset from its own records and produce\n\ndocuments sufficient to show the requested facts.\n\n The Opposition also invokes \u201cmoon and stars\u201d rhetoric but conceals how NAI worked to\n\navoid this motion entirely. NAI offered OpenAI a far narrower path, providing targeted information\n\nabout its actual use and deployment of NVIDIA products through a declaration or documents\n\nsufficient to establish the same facts. OpenAI rejected that proposal and produced nothing. It simply\n\nlabels NAI\u2019s focused proposal \u201cbroader\u201d than the subpoenas, without a word of explanation, while\n\n\n\n\n1\n Unless otherwise indicated, this Reply uses the same defined terms as NAI\u2019s Motion to Compel.\n 1\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 6 of 19\n\n\n\n simultaneously insisting the subpoenas themselves are too broad. Moreover, the Court is not limited\n\n to an all-or-nothing choice and may enforce the subpoenas in narrowed form and order the focused\n\n relief NAI proposed during the meet-and-confer process.\n\nI. NAI\u2019S MOTION COMPLIES WITH THIS COURT\u2019S LOCAL RULES\n\n A. NAI\u2019s Motion Substantially Complies with Local Rule 37-2.\n\n OpenAI first argues that NAI did not reproduce verbatim\u2014within the body of its\n\n memorandum\u2014all twelve requests, five topics, and OpenAI\u2019s identical objections refusing to\n\n provide any discovery. Opp. at 5\u20136. That is, at most, a harmless formatting issue, and is not a basis\n\n to avoid the merits of NAI\u2019s motion. NAI attached the subpoenas and OpenAI\u2019s responses,\n\n identified every disputed request and topic by number, organized them into four functional\n\n categories, explained how each category relates to the asserted claim limitations, and noted that\n\n OpenAI repeated the same boilerplate objections and refusal to respond to every single request and\n\n topic. Mot. at 11\u201314; Ex. 5; Exs. 9\u201310.\n\n Even if the Court finds NAI did not strictly comply with Local Rule 37-2, that rule does not\n\n mandate denial for noncompliance. Courts may overlook departures from local rules where, as here,\n\n the moving papers provide the functional equivalent of the required information and no substantial\n\n right is affected. See Pro. Programs Grp. v. Dep\u2019t of Com., 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994)\n\n (\u201c[T]he district court has broad discretion to depart from the strict terms of the local rules where it\n\n makes sense to do so and substantial rights are not at stake.\u201d). Indeed, this Court has reached the\n\n merits of a discovery dispute despite far more substantial noncompliance with Rule 37-2. For\n\n example, in Muhammad v. Koenig\u2014a case OpenAI itself quotes\u2014the movant neither reproduced\n\n the disputed requests and responses nor explained why each response was deficient. 2026 WL\n\n\n\n\n 2\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 7 of 19\n\n\n\n2296681, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2026). The court nevertheless considered the merits. Id.2\n\n Here, by contrast, OpenAI had the complete requests and objections, understood precisely\n\nwhat NAI sought, and addressed every request individually across eight pages of its opposition.\n\nOpp. at 11\u201319. OpenAI therefore cannot credibly claim uncertainty about what NAI seeks, why it\n\nseeks it, or which objections NAI challenges. And OpenAI identifies no prejudice from how NAI\n\npresented that information.\n\n If the Court nevertheless prefers a different presentation, the appropriate remedy is to permit\n\nNAI to submit a request-by-request statement, and not to forfeit relevant discovery on a fully\n\nbriefed record.\n\n B. Any Pro Hac Vice Issue Has Been Cured and Does Not Justify Denial.\n\n OpenAI next asks the Court to deny NAI\u2019s motion because several attorneys listed on NAI\u2019s\n\noriginal signature page had not applied for pro hac vice admission. Opp. at 6\u20137. But those attorneys\n\nnever filed notices of appearance, are not listed on the docket, and are not counsel of record in this\n\nmiscellaneous proceeding. They represent NAI in the underlying litigation, which is why their\n\nnames appeared in the signature block of NAI\u2019s motion to compel. NAI has removed them from\n\nthis filing, which is signed by counsel admitted to practice before this Court.\n\n That argument also provides no basis to deny NAI\u2019s motion. OpenAI cites no authority\n\nholding that a signature-block defect warrants forfeiture of otherwise proper discovery. And Local\n\n\n\n\n2\n OpenAI\u2019s remaining cases are readily distinguishable. In each, the moving papers left the court\nunable to determine what discovery the movant sought or why it was relevant and proportional. See\nYotta Techs. Inc. v. Evolve Bank & Tr., 2025 WL 3496685, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2025); Sanchez-\nMartinez v. Freitas, 2024 WL 4933339, at *3\u20134 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024). That simply is not this\ncase. NAI attached the subpoenas and OpenAI\u2019s objections, grouped the requests by subject matter,\nidentified the specific information sought, explained why each category bears on infringement and\ninducement, and explained OpenAI outright refused to comply. OpenAI plainly understood both\nthe discovery and NAI\u2019s justification for it because it devotes much of its twenty-page Opposition\nto addressing the requests individually on the merits.\n 3\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 8 of 19\n\n\n\nRule 11-3 says nothing of the sort. There is no prejudice, no confusion about who represents NAI\n\nbefore this Court, and no continuing issue to remedy. OpenAI\u2019s effort to convert that housekeeping\n\nmatter into a basis for denying discovery should be rejected.\n\n C. NAI Gave Immediate Notice and Properly Effected Personal Service.\n\n OpenAI\u2019s service argument is a distraction. NAI filed its motion at 8:36 pm on August 17\n\nand sent the complete filing to OpenAI\u2019s counsel that same night. Dkt. 5-1. The next morning, NAI\n\narranged for personal service, and a professional process server served OpenAI\u2019s registered agent\n\non August 19. Dkt. 4; Dkt. 5-2. That same day, NAI filed the executed affidavit identifying the\n\ndate, time, place, manner of service, and person served, certified under penalty of perjury. Id.\n\nOpenAI thus had actual notice from the moment the motion was filed and formal personal service\n\ntwo days later.\n\n OpenAI nevertheless accuses NAI of making a false statement because the original\n\nCertificate of Service reported that counsel received the filing by email on August 17. Opp. at 7.\n\nThere was nothing false about that statement. NAI did email OpenAI\u2019s counsel the complete filing\n\non August 17. It then separately completed personal service on August 19. OpenAI\u2019s cited authority\n\nestablishes only that email service, absent consent, may not itself satisfy Rule 5. See AboveGEM,\n\nInc. v. Organo Gold Mgmt., Ltd., 2019 WL 3859012, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2019). It does not\n\nremotely establish that where\u2014as here\u2014personal service is completed, that service is ineffective.\n\n Moreover, OpenAI\u2019s position that Rule 4 governed because the filing opened a\n\nmiscellaneous proceeding is equally misplaced. Rule 4 governs service of a summons and\n\ncomplaint. NAI filed neither. And courts addressing subpoena-enforcement proceedings have\n\ninstead applied Rule 5 to service of motion papers. See Emcyte Corp. v. Apex Biologix, LLC, 2021\n\nWL 5507219, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2021) (\u201cWhile service of the subpoena is governed by Fed.\n\nR. of Civ. P. 45, service of the Motion to Compel is governed by Fed. R. of Civ. P. 5, which already\n\n 4\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 9 of 19\n\n\n\n permits service by mail.\u201d); Freeman v. Giuliani, 2023 WL 4750552, at *8 (D.D.C. July 13, 2023)\n\n (\u201c[N]either Rule 5 nor Rule 45 demands personal service on a non-party witness of motion papers\n\n filed in court to enforce a subpoena.\u201d).\n\n But the Court need not resolve that issue because NAI personally served OpenAI. OpenAI\n\n received the motion on August 17, was physically served on August 19, filed a twenty-page\n\n opposition, and then sought leave to file still more briefing. It identifies no missed deadline,\n\n impaired defense, or other prejudice. There is none. OpenAI\u2019s attempt to dodge discovery based on\n\n service should be rejected.\n\nII. NAI\u2019S MOTION IS TIMELY\n\n OpenAI had ample time to comply with the subpoenas. NAI served the original subpoenas\n\n on June 25, forty-seven days before the August 11 document-discovery cutoff. Ex. 6; Laiche Decl.\n\n \u00b6 33. At OpenAI\u2019s request, NAI extended the response deadline to July 16. Ex. 11 at 1. When\n\n OpenAI objected to Austin as the place of compliance and refused to engage on the subpoena\n\n requests and topics, NAI promptly re-served substantively identical subpoenas on July 23\n\n identifying San Francisco instead. Ex. 5. The place changed, but the requested discovery did not.\n\n OpenAI therefore cannot plausibly characterize the July 23 subpoenas as an eleventh-hour\n\n demand. By the time NAI moved to compel, OpenAI had possessed the same substantive requests\n\n for fifty-four days. It had already served objections, participated in multiple meet-and-confers, and\n\n received NAI\u2019s focused questions and proposed declaration identifying the core information NAI\n\n sought. Exs. 9\u201314, 21\u201327. This is not a case in which a nonparty first received discovery on the eve\n\n of a cutoff. OpenAI had nearly two months to evaluate the requests and propose a path to compliance.\n\n Nor did NAI demand an immediate, full-scale collection. It repeatedly offered narrower\n\n alternatives, such as answering targeted questions, revising and executing a proposed declaration,\n\n or producing documents sufficient to establish the same core facts. Exs. 12\u201314. OpenAI did not\n\n 5\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 10 of 19\n\n\n\nrespond with a proposed collection schedule, identify a single category it was willing to produce,\n\nestimate the time needed for compliance, or offer any other workable compromise. Laiche Decl. \u00b6\n\n32. It simply refused to provide discovery. Id.; Exs. 25\u201327. Even after NAI\u2019s motion to compel was\n\nfiled OpenAI has not agreed nor offered a single narrowing proposal.\n\n OpenAI\u2019s latest timeliness theory, which appears only in its motion for leave to supplement\n\nits Opposition, is no more persuasive. Dkt. 11. First, OpenAI says the August 27 Order \u201cconfirmed\u201d\n\nthat NAI\u2019s motion was untimely (Dkt. 11 at 6), but it did no such thing. The Order addressed\n\ndiscovery-dispute charts NVIDIA filed on August 19 and 21. Dkt. 11-1. NAI\u2019s August 17 Rule 45\n\nmotion against OpenAI was not before the Texas court and is never mentioned. An order resolving\n\ndifferent disputes cannot \u201cconfirm\u201d the timeliness of a motion it never considered.\n\n Second, the Order does not even establish that the disputes before the Texas court were\n\nultimately rejected as untimely. Although the court stated that the parties\u2019 private extensions did\n\nnot bind it, it immediately \u201cwithdr[ew] its denial of the requested relief as untimely\u201d and decided\n\nthe disputes on the merits. Id. at 2\u20133. At most, the Order says the stipulation did not bind the Texas\n\ncourt as a matter of law. It says nothing about NAI\u2019s separate motion against OpenAI.\n\n Third, OpenAI\u2019s supplemental argument also fails on its own terms because NAI did not\n\nneed the parties\u2019 stipulated extension to make its motion timely. NAI complied with this Court\u2019s\n\nLocal Rule 37-3, which permits a motion to compel to be filed up to \u201c7 days after the discovery\n\ncut-off.\u201d Document discovery closed August 11. NAI filed its motion on August 17, six days later.\n\nThe motion was therefore timely under the rules of the Court in which it was filed.\n\n The same result follows under WDTX Local Rule CV-16(e), which permits a discovery\n\nmotion \u201cfiled within 14 days after the discovery deadline\u201d when it concerns \u201cconduct occurring\n\nduring the final 7 days of discovery.\u201d OpenAI\u2019s responses and objections to NAI\u2019s revised subpoena\n\nwere due August 7, four days before the August 11 cutoff. In those responses, OpenAI again refused\n\n 6\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 11 of 19\n\n\n\n to produce any documents or designate a witness on any topic. NAI then completed an additional\n\n meet-and-confer and follow-up correspondence before filing its motion on August 17, ten days after\n\n OpenAI\u2019s responses and well within Rule CV-16(e)\u2019s fourteen-day window.\n\n Moreover, the August 11 deadline applied only to document discovery. Deposition\n\n discovery remains open until September 16. Because NAI\u2019s motion seeks testimony from OpenAI,\n\n it was filed a month before that discovery period closed.\n\n OpenAI thus tries to turn an order involving different parties, different disputes, and later-\n\n filed motions into a ruling on this one. NAI moved within this Court\u2019s deadline, within the Western\n\n District\u2019s fourteen-day window, and while deposition discovery remained open. The motion is\n\n timely several times over.\n\nIII. THE SUBPOENAS SEEK RELEVANT, PROPORTIONAL DISCOVERY\n\n OpenAI calls the subpoenas a \u201cfishing expedition\u201d because several requests ask \u201cwhether\u201d\n\n OpenAI uses NVIDIA technology in particular ways. Opp. at 9\u201310. That argument would demand\n\n NAI already possess the very customer-specific facts it is entitled to discover. Discovery does not\n\n work that way.\n\n Neither the Federal Circuit nor district courts require the patentee to identify\u2014much less\n\n prove infringement by\u2014the particular induced customers before discovery. Micro Motion, Inc. v.\n\n Kane Steel Co., Inc., 894 F.2d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (\u201c[D]iscovery is allowed to flesh out a\n\n pattern of facts already known to a party relating to an issue necessarily in the case.\u201d); Minkus Elec.\n\n Display Sys. Inc. v. Adaptive Micro Sys. LLC, 2011 WL 941197, at *3 (D. Del. Mar. 16, 2011)\n\n (\u201c[I]dentifying third parties who participated in allegedly infringing activities is a proper question\n\n for discovery.\u201d); FG SRC LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., 2022 WL 22997130, at *3 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2022)\n\n (\u201cI recognize that without the use of third-party subpoenas, SRC may not be able to determine\n\n which (if any) of Xilinx\u2019s customers use Xilinx\u2019s products to infringe the asserted claims.\u201d).\n\n 7\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 12 of 19\n\n\n\n NAI thus need not prove in advance how OpenAI configures proprietary systems whose\n\noperation is known to OpenAI, not NAI. It need only show a concrete connection between OpenAI,\n\nthe accused NVIDIA products, and the infringement issues on which the discovery bears. See FG\n\nSRC LLC., 2022 WL 22997130, at *4 (\u201cSRC is targeting customers who have purchased specific\n\nproducts from Xilinx that SRC alleges can be used to infringe the asserted claims \u2026 [which] rises\n\nabove the level of \u2026 \u2018unfounded suspicion\u2019\u201d); L.G. Philips LCD Co. v. Tatung Co., 2007 WL\n\n869700, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2007) (permitting third-party discovery \u201cinsofar as it seeks to\n\nidentify further incidents of infringement regarding the patents-in-suit\u201d). The connection between\n\nOpenAI and the accused NVIDIA products is overwhelming.\n\n OpenAI publicly acknowledges massive use of NVIDIA\u2019s accused technology. OpenAI and\n\nNVIDIA announced plans to deploy at least ten gigawatts of NVIDIA systems for OpenAI\u2019s next-\n\ngeneration infrastructure, with NVIDIA intending to invest up to $100 billion as deployment\n\nproceeds. Exs. 15\u201316. NVIDIA describes the partnership as involving \u201cmulti-gigawatt data centers\n\npowered by millions of NVIDIA GPUs,\u201d and NVIDIA\u2019s CEO called it \u201cthe biggest AI\n\ninfrastructure project in history.\u201d Ex. 16 at 1. Those statements establish NAI is not speculating\n\nthat OpenAI might use accused NVIDIA technology. OpenAI indisputably does, at enormous scale.\n\nAnd tellingly, OpenAI never denies in its Opposition to using the accused NVIDIA GPUs and\n\nsoftware identified in the subpoenas. That admitted, large-scale use supplies more than a sufficient\n\nfactual basis for targeted discovery into which accused NVIDIA products OpenAI uses and how it\n\ndeploys them.\n\n The requested discovery also maps directly onto specific infringement issues. For example,\n\nRequest 1 seeks documents sufficient to identify the software, frameworks, libraries, APIs, scripts,\n\nconfiguration files, and custom code OpenAI uses to perform computations on NVIDIA GPUs. Ex.\n\n5 at 12. Request 2 asks which accused NVIDIA software\u2014including cuBLAS, cuDNN, cuFFT,\n\n 8\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 13 of 19\n\n\n\n cuSOLVER, cuSPARSE, PyTorch, TensorRT, and Triton\u2014OpenAI uses in those computations.\n\n Request 4 addresses how OpenAI\u2019s software interfaces with CUDA, cuDNN, TensorRT, CUDA\n\n libraries, drivers, runtimes, and other NVIDIA software. Id. The remaining requests address\n\n concrete operational features implicated by the asserted claims, including memory use, data\n\n transfers, reuse of outputs as inputs, pointer and buffer operations, scheduling, queuing, and\n\n synchronization. The deposition topics seek testimony on the same subjects. Those facts bear\n\n directly on NAI\u2019s infringement theories against NVIDIA because evidence that customers deploy\n\n NVIDIA\u2019s hardware and software in the configurations NVIDIA supplies, documents, and supports\n\n is probative of whether NVIDIA\u2019s acts result in the accused uses. See Negotiated Data Sols. LLC\n\n v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 733876, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009) (permitting third-party discovery\n\n because \u201coperation of NVIDIA\u2019s chips bears directly upon the accused functions in Dell\u2019s chips.\u201d).\n\n Here, the connection is concrete because OpenAI admits substantial use of NVIDIA\u2019s\n\n accused platform, and NAI is entitled to discovery. See Kim v. NuVasive, Inc., 2011 WL 3844106,\n\n at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (\u201cThe Court finds the information sought in the subpoenas is\n\n relevant to NuVasive\u2019s claim of induced infringement and damages therefrom\u201d).\n\nIV. OPENAI HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED UNDUE BURDEN\n\n OpenAI\u2019s burden defense depends on inflating both the scope of the subpoenas and the\n\n effort required to comply. OpenAI says the subpoenas could sweep in \u201cnearly every document\u201d\n\n possessed by an AI company and repeatedly invokes a universe of approximately 240 NVIDIA\n\n devices. Opp. at 11. Neither characterization reflects what NAI actually seeks.\n\n The requests repeatedly seek only \u201cdocuments sufficient to show\u201d specified facts\n\n concerning OpenAI\u2019s actual use of accused NVIDIA GPUs and software. See Ex. 5 at 12\u201314. They\n\n do not require production of every email, log, configuration file, communication, or document\n\n touching an NVIDIA system. This limitation on the subpoena\u2019s scope shows that the requested\n\n 9\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 14 of 19\n\n\n\ndiscovery is not unduly intrusive or burdensome. In re Matsumoto, 2023 WL 6959279, at *3 (N.D.\n\nCal. Oct. 19, 2023) (\u201cThe Court finds this request to be narrowly tailored to only seek documents\n\n\u2018sufficient to show\u2019 the identifying information[.]\u201d).\n\n Nor do the requests require OpenAI to investigate every NVIDIA product identified in\n\nNAI\u2019s infringement contentions. That definition tracks the accused product universe in the\n\nunderlying case. But each request is limited to products OpenAI actually \u201cuse[s].\u201d Ex. 5. OpenAI\n\ntherefore need not search for, collect, or produce anything concerning a GPU it never purchased,\n\ndeployed, or operated. OpenAI could easily identify the subset of accused NVIDIA GPU\n\narchitectures and software OpenAI actually uses through its own procurement, asset-management,\n\ndeployment, and configuration records.\n\n OpenAI nevertheless assumes that each of the approximately 240 identified devices requires\n\na separate investigation, search, and production. Opp. at 11\u201317. It offers no evidence for that\n\npremise. Moreover, the requests concern overlapping aspects of the same deployments, such as\n\nwhat GPUs and software OpenAI uses, how those systems are configured, and how data moves\n\nthrough the resulting workloads. A single architecture diagram, configuration record, deployment\n\ndocument, technical specification, or representative set of system records may answer multiple\n\nrequests at once. Because the requests seek only documents sufficient to establish specified facts,\n\nOpenAI may identify the smallest set of representative records that are needed.\n\n The subpoena period is likewise neither arbitrary nor excessive. OpenAI repeatedly objects\n\nthat the requests extend from September 13, 2018 to the present. But that is the damages period for\n\nNAI\u2019s claims in the underlying action. SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby\n\nProds., LLC, 580 U.S. 328, 329 (2017) (\u201c[A] patentee may recover damages for any infringement\n\ncommitted within six years of the filing of the claim.\u201d). Discovery concerning OpenAI\u2019s\n\n\n\n 10\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 15 of 19\n\n\n\ndeployment of accused NVIDIA products during the very period for which NAI seeks damages is\n\ndirectly relevant to infringement, inducement, and the scope of NVIDIA\u2019s potential liability.\n\n A. NAI Repeatedly Offered Less Burdensome Alternatives.\n\n NAI did not insist on maximal production. Before moving, it repeatedly proposed narrower\n\nways for OpenAI to provide the core information without wholesale collection.\n\n On August 5, NAI sent focused technical questions expressly \u201cto reduce burden and\n\npotentially avoid motion practice,\u201d together with a draft declaration OpenAI could revise for\n\naccuracy. Ex. 12 at 1; Exs. 13\u201314. NAI offered to accept an adequate declaration in lieu of further\n\ndocument production or deposition testimony. Ex. 12 at 1. The proposed declaration focused on\n\nconcrete deployment facts, including which NVIDIA GPUs and software OpenAI uses; whether\n\nOpenAI modifies NVIDIA-provided software; how input data is received and stored in CPU\n\nmemory before transfer to GPU memory; whether OpenAI alters NVIDIA\u2019s default data-flow path;\n\nand whether the relevant systems support U.S. operations. Ex. 14. OpenAI refused this narrowing\n\nproposal.\n\n NAI continued narrowing. On August 10 and 13, it explained why customer-deployment\n\nevidence was necessary, clarified that the requests concerned only accused NVIDIA products\n\nOpenAI actually used, invited OpenAI to identify specific burdens, and sought further discussion.\n\nExs. 22, 24. Then, on August 14, NAI offered an alternative requiring no declaration at all: OpenAI\n\ncould simply produce \u201cdocuments sufficient to show\u201d the information reflected in the proposed\n\ndeclaration. Ex. 26 at 1. OpenAI rejected that option too. Ex. 27.\n\n OpenAI now tries to justify its refusal to compromise by labeling the proposed declaration\n\na \u201cbroadening\u201d of the subpoenas. Opp. at 1, 4\u20135. But it tellingly never explains how. It identifies\n\nno declaration paragraph, requested fact, or subject matter that falls outside the subpoenaed\n\ncategories. It simply repeats the label \u201cbroader.\u201d Id.\n\n 11\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 16 of 19\n\n\n\n A comparison of the declaration and subpoenas shows the opposite. Paragraphs 3\u20136 of the\n\ndeclaration asked which accused NVIDIA GPUs and software OpenAI actually uses, which is a\n\nnarrowing of Requests 1 and 2. Paragraph 7 addressed whether OpenAI modifies NVIDIA-provided\n\nsource code, a narrowing of Requests 3 and 4. Paragraphs 10\u201313 addressed CPU/GPU memory\n\narchitecture, unified memory, GDS/UVM, input paths, and custom alterations to those paths, the\n\nsame architecture and data-flow subjects covered by Requests 5 and 8\u201310. Paragraph 14 incorporated\n\nthe subpoena\u2019s existing U.S.-based and U.S.-directed limitation. The declaration thus distilled the\n\nsubpoenaed subjects into a handful of targeted factual propositions. It did not expand them.\n\n And even if OpenAI believed some sentence added detail beyond the literal subpoena, that\n\nwas no reason to reject the proposal wholesale. NAI expressly invited OpenAI to \u201crevise as\n\nnecessary [the declaration] to ensure its accuracy.\u201d Ex. 12 at 1. OpenAI could have struck disputed\n\nlanguage, proposed an accurate substitute, answered the undisputed questions, produced documents\n\non the overlapping subjects, or suggested a staged production. It did none of those things.\n\n OpenAI flatly rejected every narrowing proposal without suggesting any alternatives. And\n\nto date it has produced no documents, answered none of the focused questions, proposed no revised\n\ndeclaration, identified no proposition it could confirm, offered no witness, proposed no staged\n\nsearch, and quantified no burden associated with any particular request.\n\n At minimum, the Court can compel the narrower relief NAI already offered, which is\n\ndocuments sufficient to establish the subpoenaed information reflected in the declaration, followed\n\nby testimony only as needed to address remaining gaps. That relief requires neither wholesale\n\ncollection nor acceptance of NAI\u2019s proposed wording. It requires only enough existing evidence to\n\nestablish the discrete operational facts relevant to infringement.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 17 of 19\n\n\n\n B. OpenAI Provides Zero Evidence of Actual Burden.\n\n Against those limitations and alternatives, OpenAI offers no concrete evidence that\n\ncompliance would be unduly burdensome. Its entire showing is adjectives. It repeatedly says\n\ncompliance \u201cwould take significant time and resources\u201d to understand, locate, and compile\n\nresponsive information. Opp. at 15\u201316. But it never says how much time, what resources, or why,\n\nparticularly given NAI\u2019s \u201cdocuments sufficient to show\u201d framing and OpenAI\u2019s obvious ability to\n\nidentify the NVIDIA GPUs it uses and software it deploys. There is no declaration from a technical\n\nemployee, records custodian, procurement witness, or IT professional. No number of custodians.\n\nNo repositories identified. No estimated collection or review hours. No projected cost. No\n\ndescription of any test search, sample collection, or other effort OpenAI actually undertook to\n\ndetermine the burden of compliance.\n\n That falls well short of the showing required to establish undue burden. See Universal\n\nDyeing & Printing, Inc. v. Zoetop Bus. Co., 2023 WL 9004983, at *8 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2023)\n\n(\u201c\u2018The party claiming that a discovery request is unduly burdensome must allege specific facts\n\nwhich indicate the nature and extent of the burden, usually by affidavit or other reliable evidence.\u2019\u201d\n\n(quoting Hall v. Marriot Int\u2019l, Inc., 2021 WL 1906464, at *10 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2021)); Waller\n\nv. Jet Specialty, Inc., 2024 WL 7050192, at *3 (W.D. Tex. 2024) (\u201cThe resisting party \u2018must show\n\nhow the requested discovery is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive by submitting\n\naffidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden.\u2019\u201d) (citation omitted).\n\n The Court cannot balance a burden OpenAI has never quantified against discovery that\n\nNVIDIA itself insists must come from customers. OpenAI\u2019s refusal to produce even a single\n\ndeclaration or data point quantifying its alleged burden is fatal to its objection.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 18 of 19\n\n\n\nV. CONCLUSION\n\n The Court should grant NAI\u2019s Motion to Compel. At minimum, the Court should compel\n\n OpenAI to produce documents sufficient to establish the facts addressed in NAI\u2019s draft declaration\n\n and designate a witness to testify on any remaining gaps.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 13 Filed 09/09/26 Page 19 of 19\n\n\n\nDated: September 9, 2026\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Tanner Laiche\n Tanner Laiche\n CA State Bar 344342\n 401 Union Street, Suite 3000\n Seattle, WA 98101\n tlaiche@susmangodfrey.com\n\n Attorney for Petitioner Neural AI, LLC\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on September 9, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing document\n\nwith the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to\n\ncounsel for OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n /s/ Tanner Laiche\n Tanner Laiche\n\n\n\n\n 15\n Neural AI\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-09T16:13:51.245697-07:00","document_number":"13","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027624709","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Opposition/Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-09T16:13:39.039363-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T17:02:50.606612-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-09","time_filed":"16:13:23","entry_number":13,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-09.002","pacer_sequence_number":37,"description":"REPLY (re 1 MOTION ) to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Served on Third-Party OAI International, Inc. filed byNeural AI, LLC. (Laiche, Tanner) (Filed on 9/9/2026) (Entered: 09/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477451293/","id":477451293,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493045832/","id":493045832,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/12/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-09T16:13:02.638993-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T06:50:13.126210-07:00","sha1":"98325881db83b55954111962c422ac7d7f23f6af","page_count":7,"file_size":537085,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.12.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.12.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 12 Filed 09/09/26 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\nTanner Laiche\nCA State Bar No. 344342\n401 Union Street, Suite 3000\nSeattle, WA 98101\ntlaiche@susmangodfrey.com\n\n\nAttorney for Petitioner Neural AI, LLC\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n NEURAL AI, LLC, Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n\n Petitioner, NEURAL AI\u2019S OPPOSITION TO OAI\n INTERNATIONAL, INC.\u2019S MOTION FOR\n v. LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL\n OPPOSITION\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\n Principal case pending in Western District of\n Respondent. Texas, Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-00221-LS-\n DTG\n\n\n\n\n Neural AI\u2019s Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 12 Filed 09/09/26 Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n OAI International, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cOpenAI\u201d) Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition\n\n(\u201cMotion\u201d or \u201cMot.\u201d) should be denied. OpenAI seeks to inject into the record an unrelated Western\n\nDistrict of Texas order that has no bearing on this subpoena dispute and would only confuse the\n\nissues and distract from the merits of Neural AI, LLC\u2019s (\u201cNAI\u201d) Motion to Compel.\n\n OpenAI already filed a twenty-page opposition on September 2. Two days later, it sought a\n\nsecond opposition based on an August 27 Western District of Texas order that became publicly\n\navailable on September 3. Mot. Ex. 1 (\u201cOrder\u201d). But that Order did not address this subpoena, this\n\nproceeding, or NAI\u2019s August 17 Motion to Compel OpenAI. Although the Texas court observed\n\nthat private agreements extending discovery deadlines do not bind the court, it expressly withdrew\n\nits initial timeliness ruling and resolved each dispute on the merits. Id. at 2\u20133. Nothing in the Order\n\nconsidered\u2014much less held untimely\u2014NAI\u2019s Rule 45 motion against OpenAI. More\n\nfundamentally, NAI\u2019s motion was timely under this Court\u2019s Local Rule 37-3 and WDTX Local\n\nRule CV-16(e) regardless of the parties\u2019 stipulated extension, and NAI\u2019s request for deposition\n\ntestimony was filed while deposition discovery remains open through September 16.\n\n The August 27 Order therefore changes nothing. OpenAI seeks another round of substantive\n\nbriefing to press a timeliness argument the Order neither decided nor supports, and that fails under\n\nthe applicable rules in any event. Because the proposed supplement would not aid the Court in\n\nresolving NAI\u2019s Motion to Compel, OpenAI has not shown good cause.\n\nII. ARGUMENT\n\n Supplemental briefing is permitted only upon a showing of good cause. See Cadence Design\n\nSys., Inc. v. Yunjing Intelligent Innovation (Shenzhen) Co., 2026 WL 751167, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar.\n\n17, 2026). Courts have found good cause where genuinely new evidence emerged after briefing.\n\nMusic Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, 2015 WL 3882448, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 23,\n 1\n Neural AI\u2019s Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 12 Filed 09/09/26 Page 3 of 7\n\n\n\n2015). But good cause does not exist where the \u201cproposed additional evidence would not aid the\n\nCourt in resolving the motion.\u201d Cadence Design Sys., 2026 WL 751167, at *4; see also Adams v.\n\nHaviland, No. 2:08-cv-00688-JKS, Dkt. 21, at 11 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2011) (denying supplemental\n\nbriefing that would \u201cunduly prolong\u201d the case \u201cwithout any possibility of changing the result\u201d and\n\n\u201cwould not aid the Court\u201d); Melendres v. Maricopa Cnty., 2009 WL 2515618, at *6 (D. Ariz. Aug.\n\n13, 2009) (denying leave where the proposed supplement \u201cdoes not assist the Court in the resolution\n\nof this issue\u201d). OpenAI cannot establish good cause here.\n\n A. The August 27 Order Did Not Address NAI\u2019s Motion and Does Not Support\n OpenAI\u2019s Timeliness Argument.\n\n OpenAI says the August 27 Order \u201cconfirmed\u201d NAI\u2019s motion was untimely. Dkt. 11 at 6.\n\nIt did no such thing. The Order addressed discovery-dispute charts filed by NVIDIA in the\n\nunderlying action concerning entirely different disputes, including marking allegations, source\n\ncode, interrogatory responses, and valuation information. Id. NAI\u2019s Rule 45 motion against OpenAI\n\nwas not before the Texas court, and neither OpenAI nor NAI\u2019s motion is mentioned anywhere in\n\nthe Order. An order resolving different disputes cannot \u201cconfirm\u201d the timeliness of a motion it\n\nnever considered. See Adams v. Lab\u2019y Corp. of Am., 2012 WL 370262, at *7 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 3,\n\n2012) (denying leave where information from an unrelated case did \u201cnot meaningfully add to the\n\narguments of the parties\u201d).\n\n Nor did the Texas court ultimately deny the disputes before it as untimely. The Texas court\n\nstated that the parties\u2019 private extensions did not bind the court. Mot. Ex. 1 at 2. But the very next\n\nsentence withdrew that timeliness denial: \u201cThe Court, however, will give the parties some grace\u2014\n\njust this once\u2014and withdraws its denial of the requested relief as untimely.\u201d Id. The court then\n\naddressed all three disputes on the merits. Id. at 2\u20133.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n Neural AI\u2019s Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 12 Filed 09/09/26 Page 4 of 7\n\n\n\n The Order therefore establishes only that the parties\u2019 stipulation did not bind the Texas court\n\nas a matter of law, not that the court disregarded it or treated filings made pursuant to it as untimely.\n\nTo the contrary, the court expressly allowed the disputes before it to proceed and decided them on\n\nthe merits. The Order thus provides no support for OpenAI\u2019s claim that NAI\u2019s August 17 motion\u2014\n\nagainst a different party, concerning a different subpoena, and filed in a different proceeding\u2014was\n\nuntimely, much less that the Texas court \u201cconfirmed\u201d that conclusion.\n\n B. NAI\u2019s Motion Was Timely Regardless of the Parties\u2019 Stipulated Extension.\n\n OpenAI\u2019s proposed supplement depends on a premise that NAI\u2019s motion is timely only if\n\nthe parties\u2019 stipulated extension is enforceable. For several reasons it is not.\n\n First, NAI complied with this Court\u2019s Local Rule 37-3. That Rule permits a motion to\n\ncompel to be filed up to \u201c7 days after the discovery cut-off.\u201d Document discovery closed August\n\n11. NAI filed its motion on August 17, six days later. The motion was therefore timely under the\n\nrules of the Court in which it was filed.\n\n Second, the same result follows under WDTX Local Rule CV-16(e). That Rule permits a\n\ndiscovery motion \u201cfiled within 14 days after the discovery deadline\u201d when it concerns \u201cconduct\n\noccurring during the final 7 days of discovery.\u201d OpenAI\u2019s responses and objections to NAI\u2019s revised\n\nsubpoena were due August 7, four days before the August 11 cutoff. In those responses, OpenAI\n\nagain refused to produce any documents or designate a witness on any topic. NAI then completed an\n\nadditional meet-and-confer and follow-up correspondence before filing its motion on August 17, ten\n\ndays after OpenAI\u2019s responses and well within Rule CV-16(e)\u2019s fourteen-day window.\n\n Third, the August 11 deadline applied only to document discovery. Deposition discovery\n\nremains open until September 16. Because NAI\u2019s motion seeks testimony from OpenAI, it was\n\nfiled a month before that discovery period closed.\n\n\n\n 3\n Neural AI\u2019s Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 12 Filed 09/09/26 Page 5 of 7\n\n\n\n None of those facts was before the Texas court when it resolved NVIDIA\u2019s unrelated\n\ndiscovery disputes. And none depends on enforcing the parties\u2019 stipulated extension. The August\n\n27 Order therefore adds nothing to the timeliness analysis.\n\n C. A New Decision Does Not Entitle OpenAI to a Second Opposition.\n\n The Local Rules already provide a mechanism for bringing genuinely new authority to the\n\nCourt\u2019s attention without reopening briefing. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(2) permits a party to file a\n\nStatement of Recent Decision identifying a recent judicial opinion and attaching a copy \u201cwithout\n\nargument.\u201d The Rule thus distinguishes notifying the Court of new authority from filing another\n\nsubstantive brief.\n\n Courts in this District enforce that distinction. See Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corp., No. 11-cv-\n\n06591-PJH, Dkt. 164 at 2 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) (denying leave to file supplemental briefing\n\nbased on two recent decisions and noting that the local rules permit a statement of recent decision\n\n\u201cwithout argument\u201d); Yen v. Vento Family Trust, No. 5:08-cv-03535-RMW Dkt. 72, at 5 (N.D. Cal.\n\nFeb. 7, 2009) (denying leave to file a supplemental opposition where \u201cnothing in the reply\n\nnecessitates a supplemental opposition\u201d).\n\n The Order does not change governing law, decide any issue presented by NAI\u2019s motion, or\n\nintroduce a new factual development concerning OpenAI\u2019s subpoena. At most, it is a newly\n\navailable order OpenAI wishes to argue by analogy. Rule 7-3(d)(2) provides a mechanism for\n\nidentifying such authority without granting OpenAI a second opposition.\n\n OpenAI\u2019s lack-of-prejudice argument does not supply the missing good cause. OpenAI\n\nemphasizes that NAI can address the supplemental opposition in its September 9 reply and that its\n\ntwo oppositions together remain within the page limit. Mot. at 3. Neither point answers the relevant\n\nquestion. A party does not earn another substantive brief merely because its opponent still has time\n\n\n\n 4\n Neural AI\u2019s Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 12 Filed 09/09/26 Page 6 of 7\n\n\n\nto respond, nor does remaining within the page limit create an entitlement to additional briefing.\n\nThe question is whether the supplemental brief would materially assist the Court. It would not.\n\n Indeed, the proposed supplement confirms the problem. OpenAI asks the Court to deny\n\nNAI\u2019s motion \u201con that ground alone,\u201d Dkt. 11 at 6, based on an Order that never addressed this\n\nmotion and a deadline theory that fails under the applicable rules. OpenAI already had twenty pages\n\nto oppose NAI\u2019s motion. Good cause does not exist to reopen briefing so OpenAI can add an\n\nimmaterial argument based on an unrelated order.\n\nIII. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, NAI respectfully requests that the Court deny OpenAI\u2019s Motion\n\nfor Leave to File Supplemental Opposition.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n Neural AI\u2019s Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 12 Filed 09/09/26 Page 7 of 7\n\n\n\nDated: September 9, 2026\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Tanner Laiche\n Tanner Laiche\n CA State Bar 344342\n 401 Union Street, Suite 3000\n Seattle, WA 98101\n tlaiche@susmangodfrey.com\n\n Attorney for Petitioner Neural AI, LLC\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on September 9, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing document\n\nwith the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to\n\ncounsel for OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n /s/ Tanner Laiche\n Tanner Laiche\n\n\n\n\n 6\n Neural AI\u2019s Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition\n Misc. Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n Underlying Case No.: 7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex)\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-09T16:13:44.120515-07:00","document_number":"12","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027624692","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Opposition/Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-09T16:13:02.502433-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T16:33:16.488446-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-09","time_filed":"16:12:04","entry_number":12,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":34,"description":"OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 11 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Leave to File Supplemental Opposition ) filed byNeural AI, LLC. (Laiche, Tanner) (Filed on 9/9/2026) (Entered: 09/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477041102/","id":477041102,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492621067/","id":492621067,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/11/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-04T14:54:03.734769-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T04:27:44.053753-07:00","sha1":"8804f7d87bec0458d4a84668636979e8cf0541d8","page_count":11,"file_size":1097748,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.11.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.11.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 11\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com\n Attorneys for Respondent OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n NEURAL AI, LLC,\u200b )\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n \u200b )\u200b\n \u200b Petitioner,\u200b )\u200b ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR\n \u200b )\u200b LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL\n v.\u200b )\u200b OPPOSITION\n \u200b )\u200b\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\u200b )\u200b\n \u200b )\u200b\n \u200b Respondent.\u200b )\u200b\n _________________________________________\u200b)\u200b\n Under Civil Local Rules 7-3 and 7-11, Respondent OAI International, Inc. respectfully seeks\n\n leave to file its attached supplemental opposition to Neural AI, LLC\u2019s motion to compel.\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n On September 2, OAI International filed its opposition to Neural\u2019s motion to compel. The next\n\n day, September 3, Neural filed in the court supervising the underlying litigation a public version of an\n\n order from August 27. OAI International contends that this order requires denial of Neural\u2019s motion to\n\n compel so, also on September 3, OAI International wrote a one-page supplemental opposition explaining\n\n this view. OAI International asked Neural to consent to the filing of this supplemental opposition,\n\n expecting that Neural would consent to the filing but oppose on the merits in its upcoming reply brief,\n\n due on September 9. Neural refused consent, requiring this motion.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n On August 17, 2026, petitioner Neural AI, LLC filed its Motion to Compel Compliance with\n\n Subpoena Served on Third-Party OAI International, Inc. Docket No. 1. On August 27, the Western\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 1 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 11\n\n\n District of Texas issued an order in the underlying action, Neural AI, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. Under the\n\n court\u2019s normal procedures, the \u201cCourt will enter a sealed order to resolve a motion if either party filed its\n\n briefing under seal,\u201d and the parties have \u201cseven days after the Court enters the sealed order,\u201d to seek\n\n redactions. Standing Order Regarding Filing Documents Under Seal And Redacted Public Versions\n\n (W.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2026). The Western District followed those procedures and initially entered a sealed\n\n order. Neural v. NVIDIA, Docket No. 191. Although the Western District\u2019s August 27 order did not\n\n contain any confidential information, and Neural could have filed it on the public docket at any time, it\n\n waited the full week, filing the public version only on September 3. Neural v. NVIDIA, Docket No. 193.\n\n Meanwhile, unaware of the contents of the August 27 order, on September 2, OAI International filed its\n\n opposition to Neural\u2019s motion to compel. Docket No. 7.\n\n Shortly after Neural filed the Western District\u2019s August 27 order on the public docket, OAI\n\n International reviewed the order and quickly prepared a one-page supplemental opposition regarding this\n\n new-to-OAI-International order. At 2:57 p.m. on September 3, OAI International emailed its\n\n supplemental opposition to Neural, seeking Neural\u2019s consent to its filing. Declaration of Matthew S.\n\n Warren \u00b6 2 & Ex. A. Neural did not reply. Shortly after 5:30 p.m., OAI International called Neural to\n\n seek consent to its filings. Id. \u00b6 3. At 5:38 p.m., OAI International again emailed Neural to seek\n\n consent. Id. \u00b6 4 & Ex. B. At 7:16 p.m., Neural responded that it would not consent. Id. \u00b6 5 & Ex. C.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n \u201cA court may allow a party to supplement the [motion] record after briefing was completed upon\n\n a showing of good cause.\u201d Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-3078, 2015 WL\n\n 3882448, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2015) (citing Loc. Civ. R. 7-3(d)). \u201cCourts have found good cause to\n\n supplement the [motion] record with evidence that was produced after the motion was filed.\u201d Music\n\n Grp., 2015 WL 3882448, at *9 (citing Quintana v. Claire\u2019s Stores, Inc., No. 13-368, 2013 WL 1736671,\n\n at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013)); see also Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Sci. & Tech. Co. v. Rearden LLC,\n\n No. 15-797, 2019 WL 1560449, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2019); Friedman v. Jenkins, No. 23-5036,\n\n 2026 WL 2323545, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2026). Here, OAI International has identified more\n\n than good cause for its supplemental opposition. Although Neural had access to the August 27 order\n\n since August 27, OAI International could not access it until September 3, the day after its opposition in\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 2 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11 Filed 09/04/26 Page 3 of 11\n\n\n this matter was due. If correct, OAI International\u2019s supplemental opposition will resolve the motion\n\n pending before this Court. Whether correct or not, OAI International\u2019s one-page supplement poses no\n\n prejudice to Neural; OAI is well under the Court\u2019s opposition page limit counting both its original and\n\n supplemental briefs, and Neural had and has until September 9 to prepare its reply. Loc. Civ. R. 7-3(a);\n\n 7-3(c); Docket No. 3. Neural\u2019s sole argument against supplementation is that \u201c[w]e disagree with the\n\n arguments raised in the proposed supplemental opposition, including its timeliness arguments,\u201d but those\n\n disagreements must appear in Neural\u2019s reply, not its response to this motion. Warren Decl. Ex. C.\n\n Where the \u201cCourt finds that the supplemental briefing submitted by the parties is helpful to the\n\n resolution of the matters before the Court,\u201d it grants \u201cmotions requesting permission to file supplemental\n\n briefing.\u201d Evony, LLC v. Aeria Games & Ent., Inc., No. 11-0141, 2012 WL 12843210, at *5 n.7 (N.D.\n\n Cal. Sept. 28, 2012). That is so here: OAI International\u2019s supplemental opposition will assist the Court\n\n in resolving Neural AI\u2019s pending motion to compel by providing it with complete information regarding\n\n whether the motion was timely filed. In contrast, Neural asks the Court to rule on an incomplete record.\n\n The Court should decline this invitation, allow OAI International leave to file its supplemental\n\n opposition, and consider that supplemental opposition in ruling on Neural\u2019s motion to compel.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For all the foregoing reasons, OAI International respectfully requests that the Court grant this\n\n motion for leave to file its attached supplemental opposition to Neural\u2019s motion to compel.\n\n Date: September 4, 2026 \u200b Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com\n\n Attorneys for OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 3 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11 Filed 09/04/26 Page 4 of 11\n\n\n\n\n ATTACHMENT\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11 Filed 09/04/26 Page 5 of 11\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 24-221@cases.warrenllp.com\n Attorneys for Respondent OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n NEURAL AI, LLC,\u200b )\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n )\u200b\n Petitioner,\u200b )\u200b SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO\n )\u200b MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE\n v.\u200b )\u200b WITH SUBPOENA SERVED ON\n )\u200b THIRD-PARTY OAI\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\u200b )\u200b INTERNATIONAL, INC.\n )\u200b\n Respondent.\u200b )\u200b\n _________________________________________\u200b)\u200b\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11 Filed 09/04/26 Page 6 of 11\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n Based on information OAI International learned this morning, the Court can ignore yesterday\u2019s\n\n 20-page opposition brief and deny Neural\u2019s motion to compel based on this one-page brief instead. In\n\n an order that became public this morning, the court supervising the underlying litigation confirmed that\n\n Neural\u2019s motion was untimely, so this Court can and should deny Neural\u2019s motion on that ground alone.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n Neural initially told OAI International that it must file this motion before \u201cdocument discovery in\n\n the underlying action closes on August 11.\u201d Docket No. 1-13 at 2. Neural later told OAI International it\n\n had obtained \u201ca one-week extension of Neural AI\u2019s deadline to file discovery motions,\u201d until August 18.\n\n Docket No. 1-23 at 3. Neural filed this motion on August 17. Docket No. 1. OAI International had no\n\n reason to doubt Neural\u2019s claimed deadline\u2014until this morning, when Neural filed a public version of an\n\n order, issued on August 27, in which the court denied motions to compel filed after August 11, ruling:\n While the parties apparently agreed among themselves to extend dispute deadlines, such\n agreements are not binding on the Court and do not supersede a court order, as noted by the\n Court\u2019s prior order, Local Rule CV-16(e) and the Third Amended Scheduling Order justify denial\n of the requests. The Court, however, will give the parties some grace\u2014just this once\u2014and\n withdraws its denial of the requested relief as untimely.\n Neural AI, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 24-221, Docket No. 193 at 2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2026); see\n\n Exhibit 1. Although the Western District gave \u201cthe parties some grace\u201d on those motions, it also noted\n\n that it would do so \u201cjust this once.\u201d Id. The Western District\u2019s ruling thus confirms that Neural\u2019s motion\n\n in this Court was untimely. See id. This Court should therefore deny Neural\u2019s motion to compel as\n\n untimely, in which case it need not consider any other issues raised by Neural\u2019s motion.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n OAI International respectfully requests that the Court deny Neural\u2019s motion as untimely.\n\n Date: September 3, 2026 \u200b Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 1 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11 Filed 09/04/26 Page 7 of 11\n\n\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 24-221@cases.warrenllp.com\n\n Attorneys for OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 2 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11 Filed 09/04/26 Page 8 of 11\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\f Case\n Case7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG\n 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document\n Document1193 Filed\n Filed\n 09/04/26\n 09/03/26 Page\n Page\n 9 of1 11\n of 3\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE \\VESTERN DISTRIC'f OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nNEURAL AI, LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\nv. \u00a7 CASE NO. 7:24-CV-00221-LS-DTG\n \u00a7\nNVIDIA CORPORATION, \u00a7 PUBLIC VERSION\n \u00a7\n Defendant, \u00a7\n\n AJ\\IIENDEDORDER ON AUG. 19 & 21, 2026 AND DISCOVERY DISPUTE CHARTS\n\n On August ]9, 2026, the parties submitted two discovery dispute charts ..One chart asked\n\nthe Court to compel production of documents from a third party, 'eurala, who previously ov,.rned\n\nthe asserted patents. The other chart asked the Court to compel a more complete inte1Togatory\n\nanswer from the plaintiff and to compel th.e plaintiff to produce communications between the\n\nthird party, Neumla, and another third party. The Court previously entered an orde\"rdenying the\n\nrelief requested in those charts as untimdy. By email to the Court, the defendant requested\n\nreconsideration of that order because the parties, unbeknownst to the Court, had agreed to extend\n\nthe deadline.\n\n The two charts submitted on August 19, 2026, generally in \u00b7olve discovery directed at the\n\nplaintiff's marking allegations. One chart requests source code from a third party, uerala, base-0\n\nin part on the plaintiff's claim that th.e source code alone does not practice the patent and does\n\nnot trigger a marking reiquirement. The 0th.er chart seeks an updated interrogatory response\n\nrelated to marking and production of eight emails between the pfainti:ffand a third-party.\n\n On August 21, 2026, the parties submitted another dis,covery dispute chart directed at\n\nthird party, Pelion, on whom the defendant served a. subpoena. That subpoena generally requests\n\n\n\n Page.] of 3\n\f Case\n Case7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG\n 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document\n Document\n 11193Filed\n Filed\n 09/04/26\n 09/03/26Page\n Page\n 10 of\n 2 of\n 113\n\n\n\ninformation about valuations the trurd party placed on the patents or the prior patent owner,\n\nNemala, for investment purposes. The third party, Pelion, requests that the Comt quash the\n\nsubpoena as untimely and as seeking overbroad irrelevant inf 01mation.\n\n As noted above, tlhe Court previously denied the relief requeste-0in the first two charts as\n\nuntimely. Dkt. No. ]90. While the parties apparently agreed among th.emselves to extend dispute\n\nde;adlines, such agreements are not binding on the Court and do not supersede a court order, as\n\nnoted by the Court's prior ordei\u00b7,Local Rule CV-16(e) and the Third Amende-0 Sch.edul.ingOrder\n\njustify denial of the reJquests. The Court\" hov.reve:r,.vill give the parties some grace-just this\n\nonce-and withdraws its denial of the requested relief as untimely.\n\n After reviewing all three charts and the exhibits submitted \u00b7witll each, the defendant's\n\nrequested relief is DENIED. 'The Court fmds that the plaintiff's answe-r to the marking\n\ninterrogatory is sufficient, and that the eight emails are covered by the work-product protection.\n\nThe Court further fmds that the information from the third parties-Nuerala and Pelion-are not\n\nrelevant and he production is not proportional to the needs of tlle case..Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b )( 1).\n\nThe plaintiff's interrogatJory response makes clear its position that the software alone does not\n\npractice the patent and does not trigger a marking requirement. othing about the source code\n\nwould make that statement any more or less probable. Fe Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 2:57 PM\nTo: Tanner Laiche \nCc: \"Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc.\" <26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com>\n\n Tanner:\n\n OAI International will seek leave to file the attached supplemental opposition to Neural's motion to compel. Our rationale\n for filing today rather than yesterday will be apparent when you read it. Although Neural may disagree with the substance\n of this supplemental opposition, and will have an opportunity to express that disagreement in its reply brief, under these\n circumstances we would hope that you would promptly consent to our filing of this supplemental opposition.\n\n If you consent, we will prepare a stipulation under Local Rule 7-12. If you do not consent, we will move for leave to file\n under Local Rule 7-11. Please let us know as soon as possible whether you will consent, as we want to file either a\n stipulation or a motion today.\n\n Thank you for your continued time and courtesy in this matter.\n\n Best Regards,\n Matt Warren\n\n --\n Matt Warren matt@warrenllp.com +1 (415) 895-2928\n\n\n 1.pdf\n 874K\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11-2 Filed 09/04/26 Page 3 of 9\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 24-221@cases.warrenllp.com\n Attorneys for Respondent OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n NEURAL AI, LLC,\u200b )\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n )\u200b\n Petitioner,\u200b )\u200b SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO\n )\u200b MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE\n v.\u200b )\u200b WITH SUBPOENA SERVED ON\n )\u200b THIRD-PARTY OAI\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\u200b )\u200b INTERNATIONAL, INC.\n )\u200b\n Respondent.\u200b )\u200b\n _________________________________________\u200b)\u200b\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11-2 Filed 09/04/26 Page 4 of 9\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n Based on information OAI International learned this morning, the Court can ignore yesterday\u2019s\n\n 20-page opposition brief and deny Neural\u2019s motion to compel based on this one-page brief instead. In\n\n an order that became public this morning, the court supervising the underlying litigation confirmed that\n\n Neural\u2019s motion was untimely, so this Court can and should deny Neural\u2019s motion on that ground alone.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n Neural initially told OAI International that it must file this motion before \u201cdocument discovery in\n\n the underlying action closes on August 11.\u201d Docket No. 1-13 at 2. Neural later told OAI International it\n\n had obtained \u201ca one-week extension of Neural AI\u2019s deadline to file discovery motions,\u201d until August 18.\n\n Docket No. 1-23 at 3. Neural filed this motion on August 17. Docket No. 1. OAI International had no\n\n reason to doubt Neural\u2019s claimed deadline\u2014until this morning, when Neural filed a public version of an\n\n order, issued on August 27, in which the court denied motions to compel filed after August 11, ruling:\n While the parties apparently agreed among themselves to extend dispute deadlines, such\n agreements are not binding on the Court and do not supersede a court order, as noted by the\n Court\u2019s prior order, Local Rule CV-16(e) and the Third Amended Scheduling Order justify denial\n of the requests. The Court, however, will give the parties some grace\u2014just this once\u2014and\n withdraws its denial of the requested relief as untimely.\n Neural AI, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 24-221, Docket No. 193 at 2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2026); see\n\n Exhibit 1. Although the Western District gave \u201cthe parties some grace\u201d on those motions, it also noted\n\n that it would do so \u201cjust this once.\u201d Id. The Western District\u2019s ruling thus confirms that Neural\u2019s motion\n\n in this Court was untimely. See id. This Court should therefore deny Neural\u2019s motion to compel as\n\n untimely, in which case it need not consider any other issues raised by Neural\u2019s motion.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n OAI International respectfully requests that the Court deny Neural\u2019s motion as untimely.\n\n Date: September 3, 2026 \u200b Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 1 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11-2 Filed 09/04/26 Page 5 of 9\n\n\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 24-221@cases.warrenllp.com\n\n Attorneys for OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 2 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL\n\fCase 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11-2 Filed 09/04/26 Page 6 of 9\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\f Case\n Case7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG\n 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document\n Document\n 11-2\n 193 Filed\n Filed09/04/26\n 09/03/26 Page\n Page71ofof93\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE \\VESTERN DISTRIC'f OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nNEURAL AI, LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\nv. \u00a7 CASE NO. 7:24-CV-00221-LS-DTG\n \u00a7\nNVIDIA CORPORATION, \u00a7 PUBLIC VERSION\n \u00a7\n Defendant, \u00a7\n\n AJ\\IIENDEDORDER ON AUG. 19 & 21, 2026 AND DISCOVERY DISPUTE CHARTS\n\n On August ]9, 2026, the parties submitted two discovery dispute charts ..One chart asked\n\nthe Court to compel production of documents from a third party, 'eurala, who previously ov,.rned\n\nthe asserted patents. The other chart asked the Court to compel a more complete inte1Togatory\n\nanswer from the plaintiff and to compel th.e plaintiff to produce communications between the\n\nthird party, Neumla, and another third party. The Court previously entered an orde\"rdenying the\n\nrelief requested in those charts as untimdy. By email to the Court, the defendant requested\n\nreconsideration of that order because the parties, unbeknownst to the Court, had agreed to extend\n\nthe deadline.\n\n The two charts submitted on August 19, 2026, generally in \u00b7olve discovery directed at the\n\nplaintiff's marking allegations. One chart requests source code from a third party, uerala, base-0\n\nin part on the plaintiff's claim that th.e source code alone does not practice the patent and does\n\nnot trigger a marking reiquirement. The 0th.er chart seeks an updated interrogatory response\n\nrelated to marking and production of eight emails between the pfainti:ffand a third-party.\n\n On August 21, 2026, the parties submitted another dis,covery dispute chart directed at\n\nthird party, Pelion, on whom the defendant served a. subpoena. That subpoena generally requests\n\n\n\n Page.] of 3\n\f Case\n Case7:24-cv-00221-LS-DTG\n 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document\n Document\n 11-2\n 193 Filed\n Filed09/04/26\n 09/03/26 Page\n Page82ofof93\n\n\n\ninformation about valuations the trurd party placed on the patents or the prior patent owner,\n\nNemala, for investment purposes. The third party, Pelion, requests that the Comt quash the\n\nsubpoena as untimely and as seeking overbroad irrelevant inf 01mation.\n\n As noted above, tlhe Court previously denied the relief requeste-0in the first two charts as\n\nuntimely. Dkt. No. ]90. While the parties apparently agreed among th.emselves to extend dispute\n\nde;adlines, such agreements are not binding on the Court and do not supersede a court order, as\n\nnoted by the Court's prior ordei\u00b7,Local Rule CV-16(e) and the Third Amende-0 Sch.edul.ingOrder\n\njustify denial of the reJquests. The Court\" hov.reve:r,.vill give the parties some grace-just this\n\nonce-and withdraws its denial of the requested relief as untimely.\n\n After reviewing all three charts and the exhibits submitted \u00b7witll each, the defendant's\n\nrequested relief is DENIED. 'The Court fmds that the plaintiff's answe-r to the marking\n\ninterrogatory is sufficient, and that the eight emails are covered by the work-product protection.\n\nThe Court further fmds that the information from the third parties-Nuerala and Pelion-are not\n\nrelevant and he production is not proportional to the needs of tlle case..Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b )( 1).\n\nThe plaintiff's interrogatJory response makes clear its position that the software alone does not\n\npractice the patent and does not trigger a marking requirement. othing about the source code\n\nwould make that statement any more or less probable. Fe Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 5:38 PM\nTo: Tanner Laiche \nCc: \"Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc.\" <26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com>\n\n Tanner:\n\n I write to follow up on my email below. A few minutes ago I called your direct line, (206) 505-3816, but got your voicemail.\n My direct line is below; please feel free to call me at any time.\n\n In the hope that you consent to our filing, we've prepared what I believe is a neutral stipulation effecting that filing. Please\n review it and, if you agree, sign it and we'll file it.\n\n In what I hope is the unlikely event that you decline to consent to this filing, please let me know as soon as possible,\n as the Court will expect us to get our supplemental opposition on the docket quickly, whether through a stipulation or a\n motion.\n\n Thank you for your continued time and courtesy in this matter.\n\n Best Regards,\n Matt Warren\n\n --\n Matt Warren matt@warrenllp.com +1 (415) 895-2928\n\n ---------- Forwarded message ---------\n From: Matt Warren \n Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 2:57 PM\n Subject: Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc., Case No. 26-80261 (N.D. California)\n To: Tanner Laiche \n Cc: Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc. <26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com>\n\n Tanner:\n\n OAI International will seek leave to file the attached supplemental opposition to Neural's motion to compel. Our rationale\n for filing today rather than yesterday will be apparent when you read it. Although Neural may disagree with the substance\n of this supplemental opposition, and will have an opportunity to express that disagreement in its reply brief, under these\n circumstances we would hope that you would promptly consent to our filing of this supplemental opposition.\n\n If you consent, we will prepare a stipulation under Local Rule 7-12. If you do not consent, we will move for leave to file\n under Local Rule 7-11. Please let us know as soon as possible whether you will consent, as we want to file either a\n stipulation or a motion today.\n\n Thank you for your continued time and courtesy in this matter.\n\n Best Regards,\n Matt Warren\n\n --\n Matt Warren matt@warrenllp.com +1 (415) 895-2928\n\n\n\n Draft Stipulation and Proposed Order.pdf\n 531K\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11-3 Filed 09/04/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com\n Attorneys for Respondent OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n NEURAL AI, LLC,\u200b )\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n \u200b )\u200b\n \u200b Petitioner,\u200b )\u200b JOINT STIPULATION AND\n \u200b )\u200b [PROPOSED] ORDER IN SUPPORT OF\n v.\u200b )\u200b LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL\n \u200b )\u200b OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\u200b )\u200b COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA\n \u200b )\u200b SERVED ON THIRD-PARTY OAI\n \u200b Respondent.\u200b )\u200b INTERNATIONAL, INC.\n _________________________________________\u200b)\u200b\n\n\n WHEREAS, on August 17, 2026, petitioner Neural AI, LLC filed its Motion to Compel\n\n Compliance with Subpoena Served on Third-Party OAI International, Inc. (Docket No. 1);\n\n WHEREAS, on August 27, the Western District of Texas issued an Order in the underlying\n\n action, Neural AI, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. Id., No. 24-221, Docket No. 191, but this Order was initially\n\n sealed and therefore not available to the public, including OAI International;\n\n WHEREAS, on September 2, respondent OAI International filed its Opposition to Motion to\n\n Compel Compliance with Subpoena Served on Third-Party OAI International, Inc. (Docket No. 7);\n\n WHEREAS, on September 3, the Western District\u2019s August 27 Order became public;\n\n WHEREAS, on September 3, OAI International prepared a supplemental opposition based on the\n\n Western District\u2019s August 27 Order, and provided a copy of this supplemental opposition to Neural AI;\n\n WHEREAS, a true and correct copy of this supplemental opposition is attached as Exhibit A;\n\n WHEREAS, Neural AI\u2019s reply brief in support of its motion to compel is due on September 9;\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 1 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11-3 Filed 09/04/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the Court\u2019s\n\n approval, that OAI International has leave to file the supplemental opposition attached as Exhibit A.\n\n Dated: September 3, 2026\u200b \u200b Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n _______________________________________\u200b ______________________\n Max L. Tribble (Texas State Bar No. 20213950)\u200b Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Brian D. Melton (Texas State Bar 24010620)\u200b Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n Rocco Magni (Texas State Bar 24092745)\u200b DeMarcus B.T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Samuel Drezdzon (Texas State Bar 24117374\u200b Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n SUSMAN GODFREY LLP\u200b WARREN LLP\n 1000 Louisiana Suite 5100\u200b 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n Houston, TX 77002\u200b San Francisco, California, 94114\n Telephone: (713) 651-9366 \u200b +1 (415) 895-2940\n Facsimile: (713) 654-6666\u200b +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n mtribble@susmangodfrey.com \u200b 26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com\n bmelton@susmangodfrey.com\n rmagni@susmangodfrey.com\u200b Attorneys for Respondent OAI International, Inc.\n sdrezdzon@susmangodfrey.com\n\n Tamar Lusztig (NY State Bar 5125174)\n Emily Portuguese (NY State Bar 5920327)\n One Manhattan West, 50th Floor\n New York, NY 10001\n tlusztig@susmangodfrey.com\n eportuguese@susmangodfrey.com\n\n Tanner Laiche (State Bar 344342)\n 401 Union Street, Suite 3000\n Seattle, WA 98101\n tlaiche@susmangodfrey.com\n\n Attorneys for Petitioner Neural AI, LLC\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER\n\n PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, that OAI International, Inc. has leave to\n\n file the supplemental opposition attached as Exhibit A.\n\n\n\n DATED:_______________________\u200b _____________________________________\n HONORABLE ALEX G. TSE\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 2 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-04T14:54:51.504279-07:00","document_number":"11","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"035027607605","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492621099/","id":492621099,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/11/4/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-04T14:54:21.037852-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T13:25:04.358056-07:00","sha1":"29e15ff2e65e8f95578875884adb58d9a9c1ff7f","page_count":3,"file_size":249471,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.11.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.11.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11-4 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11-4 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nNeural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc., Case No. 26-80261 (N.D. California)\n Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 7:16\n'Tanner Laiche' via Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc. <26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com>\n PM\nReply-To: Tanner Laiche \nTo: Matt Warren \nCc: \"Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc.\" <26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com>, Rocco Magni\n, Tamar Lusztig , Brian Melton\n, Max Tribble , Emily Portuguese\n, Samuel Drezdzon , Rachel Hanna\n, Richard Wojtczak \n\n Counsel,\n\n We do not consent to the supplemental filing. We disagree with the arguments raised in the\n proposed supplemental opposition, including its timeliness arguments, and do not believe there is a\n basis for a supplemental opposition after OAI\u2019s deadline. OAI may seek leave from the Court, and\n Neural will respond as appropriate.\n\n Regards,\n\n Tanner\n\n Sent from my iPhone.\n\n From: Matt Warren \n Sent: Thursday, 03 September 2026 17:38:08\n To: Tanner Laiche \n Cc: Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc. <26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com>\n Subject: Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc., Case No. 26-80261 (N.D. California)\n\n EXTERNAL Email\n\n Tanner:\n\n I write to follow up on my email below. A few minutes ago I called your direct line, (206) 505-3816, but got your voicemail.\n My direct line is below; please feel free to call me at any time.\n\n In the hope that you consent to our filing, we've prepared what I believe is a neutral stipulation effecting that filing. Please\n review it and, if you agree, sign it and we'll file it.\n\n In what I hope is the unlikely event that you decline to consent to this filing, please let me know as soon as possible,\n as the Court will expect us to get our supplemental opposition on the docket quickly, whether through a stipulation or a\n motion.\n\n Thank you for your continued time and courtesy in this matter.\n\n Best Regards,\n Matt Warren\n\n --\n Matt Warren matt@warrenllp.com +1 (415) 895-2928\n\n ---------- Forwarded message ---------\n From: Matt Warren \n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11-4 Filed 09/04/26 Page 3 of 3\nDate: Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 2:57 PM\nSubject: Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc., Case No. 26-80261 (N.D. California)\nTo: Tanner Laiche \nCc: Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc. <26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com>\n\nTanner:\n\nOAI International will seek leave to file the attached supplemental opposition to Neural's motion to compel. Our rationale\nfor filing today rather than yesterday will be apparent when you read it. Although Neural may disagree with the substance\nof this supplemental opposition, and will have an opportunity to express that disagreement in its reply brief, under these\ncircumstances we would hope that you would promptly consent to our filing of this supplemental opposition.\n\nIf you consent, we will prepare a stipulation under Local Rule 7-12. If you do not consent, we will move for leave to file\nunder Local Rule 7-11. Please let us know as soon as possible whether you will consent, as we want to file either a\nstipulation or a motion today.\n\nThank you for your continued time and courtesy in this matter.\n\nBest Regards,\nMatt Warren\n\n--\nMatt Warren matt@warrenllp.com +1 (415) 895-2928\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-04T14:54:52.135586-07:00","document_number":"11","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"035027607606","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492621100/","id":492621100,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/11/5/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-04T14:54:21.058004-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T13:27:10.418936-07:00","sha1":"662f7cab619682c521547da8e408332948b05141","page_count":1,"file_size":568718,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.11.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.11.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 11-5 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 26-80261@cases.warrenllp.com\n Attorneys for Respondent OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n NEURAL AI, LLC,\u200b )\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n )\u200b\n Petitioner,\u200b )\u200b [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING\n )\u200b ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION\n v.\u200b )\u200b FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL\n )\u200b OPPOSITION\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\u200b )\u200b\n )\u200b\n Respondent.\u200b )\u200b\n _________________________________________\u200b)\u200b\n For good cause shown, respondent OAI International, Inc. has leave to file the supplemental\n\n opposition attached to its motion for leave to file. The date of this filing shall be deemed to be\n\n September 3, 2026, when OAI International, Inc. provided a copy of its supplemental opposition to\n\n petitioner Neural AI, Inc. Petitioner Neural AI, Inc. may respond to the supplemental opposition in its\n\n reply of September 9, 2026.\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n Date: ______________\n _______________________________\n HONORABLE ALEX G. TSE\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-04T14:54:54.199283-07:00","document_number":"11","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"035027607607","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-04T14:54:03.698584-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-04T15:04:49.153548-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-04","time_filed":"14:46:46","entry_number":11,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":32,"description":"ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Leave to File Supplemental Opposition filed by OAI International, Inc.. Responses due by 9/8/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew S. Warren, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Proposed Order)(Warren, Matthew) (Filed on 9/4/2026) (Entered: 09/04/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476794176/","id":476794176,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492367523/","id":492367523,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/10/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-03T07:16:08.371071-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T07:16:08.371079-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"10","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-03T07:16:08.352451-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T08:25:16.382632-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":10,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-02.005","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance filed by Madeline A Woodall on behalf of OAI International, Inc. (Woodall, Madeline) (Filed on 9/2/2026) (Entered: 09/02/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476794175/","id":476794175,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492367522/","id":492367522,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/9/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-03T07:16:08.337893-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T07:16:08.337902-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"9","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-03T07:16:08.318446-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T08:25:16.369547-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":9,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-02.004","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance filed by Demarcus Brandon Terrell Williams on behalf of OAI International, Inc. (Williams, Demarcus) (Filed on 9/2/2026) (Entered: 09/02/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476794174/","id":476794174,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492367521/","id":492367521,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/8/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-03T07:16:08.296162-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T07:16:08.296169-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"8","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-03T07:16:08.275800-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T08:25:16.353317-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":8,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-02.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance filed by Erika H. Warren on behalf of OAI International, Inc. (Warren, Erika) (Filed on 9/2/2026) (Entered: 09/02/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476766594/","id":476766594,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492339145/","id":492339145,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/7/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-02T21:40:25.512732-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T05:14:52.090237-07:00","sha1":"149ea1d29d7e85ea4a67317fc5ba15cc51cd3aee","page_count":27,"file_size":824340,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.7.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.476392/gov.uscourts.cand.476392.7.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 1 of 27\n\n\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 24-221@cases.warrenllp.com\n Attorneys for Respondent OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n NEURAL AI, LLC,\u200b )\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n )\u200b\n Petitioner,\u200b )\u200b OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO\n )\u200b COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH\n v.\u200b )\u200b SUBPOENA SERVED ON THIRD-PARTY\n )\u200b OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.\n OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,\u200b )\u200b\n )\u200b\n Respondent.\u200b )\u200b\n _________________________________________\u200b)\u200b\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 2 of 27\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200biii\n\n INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b1\n\n BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b2\n\n A. Neural\u2019s Litigation and Its Initial Subpoenas to Amazon, Microsoft, and CoreWeave . . . \u200b2\n\n B. Neural\u2019s Unexplained and Inexplicable Eight-Month Delay in Serving Subpoenas . . . . .\u200b2\n\n C. Neural\u2019s Eleventh-Hour Subpoena Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b3\n\n D. OAI International\u2019s Objections to Neural\u2019s Initial Set of Subpoenas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b3\n\n E. Neural\u2019s Second Set of Subpoenas and Its Failure to Narrow or Meaningfully Confer . . \u200b4\n\n F. Neural\u2019s Final Offer Seeks Information Not Called For By Its Subpoenas . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b5\n\n G. Neural\u2019s Motions to Compel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b5\n\n ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b5\n\n I. Neural Failed to Comply With This Court\u2019s Local Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b5\n\n A. Neural\u2019s Motion Failed to Comply With Local Civil Rule 37-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b5\n\n B. Neural Failed to Comply With Local Civil Rule 11-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b7\n\n C. Neural Failed to Comply With Local Civil Rule 5-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b7\n\n II. Neural Served Its Subpoenas Too Late For OAI International to Comply With Them . . .\u200b8\n\n III. Neural Failed to Show Relevance or Proportionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b9\n\n A. Neural\u2019s Subpoenas Are a Fishing Expedition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b9\n\n B. Neural\u2019s Subpoenas Are Not Proportionate to the Needs\n\n of the Underlying Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b10\n\n IV. Neural\u2019s Subpoenas are Unduly Burdensome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b11\n\n A. Document Request No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b11\n\n B. Document Request No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b12\n\n C. Document Request No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b12\n\n D. Document Request No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b13\n\n E. Document Request No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b13\n\n F. Document Request No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b14\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 i \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 3 of 27\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\u200b\n (continued)\n G. Document Request No. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b14\n\n H. Document Request No. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b15\n\n I. Document Request No. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b15\n\n J. Document Request No. 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b16\n\n K. Document Request No. 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b 16\n\n L. Document Request No. 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b 17\n\n M. Deposition Topic No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b17\n\n N. Deposition Topic No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b17\n\n O. Deposition Topic No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b18\n\n P. Deposition Topic No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b18\n\n Q. Deposition Topic No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b18\n\n CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b20\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 ii \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 4 of 27\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Cases \u200b Pages\n\n 611 Carpenter LLC v. Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co.,\n No. 23-823, 2024 WL 1977160 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b11\n\n AboveGEM, Inc. v. Organo Gold Mgmt., Ltd.,\n No. 19-4789, 2019 WL 3859012 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b8\n\n AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc.,\n No. 12-3393, 2014 WL 6706898 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b8-9\n\n Belling v. DDP Holdings, Inc.,\n No. 12-1855, 2013 WL 12140986 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b9\n\n Bluestone Innovations LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc,\n No. 13-1770, 2013 WL 6354419 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b10\n\n BNSF Ry. Co. v. Ctr. for Asbestos Related Disease, Inc.,\n No. 07-295, 2008 WL 2509143 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b9\n\n Food Lion v. United Food & Commr. Workers Int\u2019l Union,\n 103 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b10\n\n Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.,\n No. 17-2107, 2017 WL 6209309 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b19\n\n Gjovik v. Apple Inc.,\n No. 23-4597, 2026 WL 1025553 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b8\n\n Hosseinzadeh v. Bellevue Park Homeowners Assn.,\n No. 18-1385, 2020 WL 3271769 (W.D. Wash. June 17, 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b19\n\n Huynh v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.,\n No. 18-1631, 2019 WL 13221170 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b11\n\n Intermarine, LLC v. Spliethoff Bevrachtingskantoor, B.V.,\n 123 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b9\n\n Koji IP, LLC v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc.,\n No. 24-3089, 2025 WL 917110 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2025),\n motion for relief from judgment denied, 2026 WL 793025 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b7\n\n Lemberg Law LLC v. Hussin,\n No. 16-80066, 2016 WL 3231300 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b19\n\n Monterey Bay Mil. Hous., LLC v. Pinnacle Monterey LLC,\n No. 15-80123, 2015 WL 2229229 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b 11-17\n\n Moon v. SCP Pool Corp.,\n 232 F.R.D. 633 (C.D. Cal. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b11\n\n \u200b \u2013 iii \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 5 of 27\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\u200b\n (continued)\n Cases\u200b Page\n\n Mori v. Baroni,\n No. 19-40, 2022 WL 1442854 (D. Mont. May 6, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b9\n\n Morris v. Wells Fargo & Co.,\n No. 23-3277, 2025 WL 3443504 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b17-19\n\n Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp.,\n No. 16-80170, 2016 WL 5870010 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b9\n\n Muhammad v. Koening,\n No. 24-7884, 2026 WL 2296681 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b6\n\n Om Recs., LLC v. OM Dev., SAS,\n No. 23-4506, 2024 WL 4100870 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b10\n\n Richards v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.,\n No. 23-145, 2024 WL 4375785 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b10-11\n\n Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.,\n 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b10\n\n Russell v. Maman,\n No. 18-6691, 2021 WL 3212646 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2021) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b3\n\n Russo v. Fed. Med. Servs., Inc.,\n No. 24-748, 2024 WL 4633641 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b11\n\n Sanchez-Martinez v. Freitas,\n No. 22-7144, 2024 WL 4933339 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b6\n\n Shared P\u2019ship v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,\n No. 22-2366, 2023 WL 2526645 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b10\n\n Sirota v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp.,\n No. 05-3296, 2006 WL 708910 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b9\n\n United States v. C.B.S., Inc.,\n 666 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b19\n\n Wyles v. Sussman,\n 445 F. Supp. 3d 751 (C.D. Cal. 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b8\n\n Yotta Techs. Inc. v. Evolve Bank & Tr.,\n No. 24-6456, 2025 WL 3496685 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b6\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 iv \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 6 of 27\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\u200b\n (continued)\n \u200b Statutes and Rules\u200b \u200b Page\n\n 9 Moore\u2019s Federal Practice, Civil \u00a7 45.21 (2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b8\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b7\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b 8\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b9\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b6\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b8\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b 8-9, 11\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b8\n\n Loc. Civ. R. 5-5(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b 7\n\n Loc. Civ. R. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b6\n\n Loc. Civ. R. 11-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b7\n\n Loc. Civ. R. 37-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b2, 5-6\n\n E.D. Tex. Loc. R. CV-5(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b8\n\n\n \u200b Other Authorities\n Neural AI, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,\n No. 26-241, Docket No. 1-3 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b2\n\n Neural AI, LLC v. CoreWeave, Inc.,\n No. 26-323 Docket No. 1-3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b2\n\n Neural AI, LLC v. Google, LLC,\n No. 26-324, Docket No, 1-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b3\n\n Neural AI, LLC v. Meta Platforms,\n No. 26-327 Docket No. 1-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b3\n\n Neural AI, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,\n No. 26-242, Docket No. 1-3 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b2\n\n Neural AI, LLC v. Oracle Corp.,\n No. 26-325, Docket No. 1-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b3\n\n Neural AI, LLC v. Tesla Inc.,\n No. 26-318, Docket No. 1-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b3\n\n \u200b \u2013 v \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 7 of 27\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\u200b\n (continued)\n Other Authorities\u200b Page\n\n Neural AI, LLC v. x.AI Corp.,\n No. 26-319, Docket No. 1-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b3\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 vi \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 8 of 27\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n Third-party subpoenas usually follow a reasonably familiar dance. The subpoena asks for the\n\n sun, the moon, and the stars; the respondent objects, the parties meet and confer, and the subpoenaing\n\n party narrows its demand to what it really wants, perhaps a few asteroids. Sometimes the parties reach a\n\n deal, and sometimes they don\u2019t; if they don\u2019t, the subpoenaing party moves to compel a much narrower\n\n set of documents\u2014the asteroids rather than the sun-moon-stars sought by the original subpoena.\n\n That familiar story didn\u2019t play out here. Things started off as usual: petitioner Neural AI, LLC\n\n subpoenaed respondent OAI International, Inc., asking for the sun, the moon, and the stars\u2014in this case,\n\n documents and testimony concerning (in Neural\u2019s own words) \u201cwhat NVIDIA GPUs and software OAI\n\n uses, how OAI uses them together, whether OAI modifies or customizes the NVIDIA software, and how\n\n OAI\u2019s workloads and data are processed using those products.\u201d Docket No. 1-25 at 3. OAI International\n\n objected, and the parties met and conferred\u2014but Neural did not narrow its requests. Instead, Neural\n\n proposed that OAI International execute a declaration it provided, or produce documents responsive to\n\n the scope of information sought by the same declaration\u2014but the scope of that declaration was broader,\n\n including information even beyond the sun-moon-stars sought by the subpoenas. Neural repeatedly\n\n threatened to file a motion to compel, claiming that it would shortly run out of time to do so, but\n\n neglected to mention that it had inexplicably waited more than eight months to serve its first subpoenas.\n\n OAI International could not agree either to Neural\u2019s sun-moon-stars subpoenas or its sun-moon-stars-\n\n plus declaration, and so Neural made good on its threats and brought this motion, which asks the Court\n\n to order OAI International\u2019s production of the full sun-moon-stars within an impossible three weeks.\n\n Neural\u2019s motion confirms why the Court can and should deny it, for several independent reasons.\n\n First, Neural failed to follow this Court\u2019s local rules, most notably Rule 37-2, which requires a moving\n\n party to explain and justify each request it seeks to enforce. Instead Neural threw spaghetti at the wall,\n\n listing broad categories and providing vague justifications. This Court requires more from movants to\n\n compel, and for good reason. Second, Neural failed to meet its burden to show the relevance and\n\n proportionality of its requests. Instead, Neural admitted that it has no idea whether OAI International\u2019s\n\n documents will be relevant at all, confirming that its requests are the definition of a fishing expedition.\n\n Third, Neural inexplicably waited eight months to serve its subpoenas on OAI International, despite\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 1 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 9 of 27\n\n\n seeking the same information from other customers much earlier, thus leaving OAI International\n\n insufficient time to respond. And, fourth, Neural\u2019s sun-moon-stars requests, which it seeks to enforce\n\n verbatim from its subpoena, are wildly overbroad and unduly burdensome, requiring significant work\n\n even to understand what documents are in play, let alone to collect them. Each of these failures would,\n\n on its own, be fatal to Neural\u2019s motion. The Court should deny Neural\u2019s motion to compel.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n A. Neural\u2019s Litigation and Its Initial Subpoenas to Amazon, Microsoft, and CoreWeave\n\n On September 13, 2024, Neural AI, LLC (\u201cNeural\u201d) filed the underlying litigation against a\n\n single defendant, NVIDIA Corporation. Neural AI, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 24-221 (W.D. Tex. Sept.\n\n 13, 2024). Although Neural\u2019s theory of infringement remains unclear to OAI International, it apparently\n\n relies on allegations of \u201cintegrated combinations of NVIDIA hardware and software that together\n\n implement GPU-accelerated computing\u201d that Neural claims infringe its patents. Mot. at 3:4-9. Neural\n\n alleges that \u201cNVIDIA encourages its customers to combine, configure, and use those products in an\n\n infringing manner.\u201d Id. at 3:8-9. But, as Neural admitted in its motion, \u201cNVIDIA has stated throughout\n\n discovery\u2014and represented to the Court during a sealed discovery conference on September 8,\n\n 2025\u2014that NAI would need to seek from customers and end users any discovery showing how NVIDIA\n\n hardware and software are actually deployed.\u201d Id. at 3:13-15. Shortly after NVIDIA made these\n\n statements, on October 15, 2025, Neural served Amazon.com, Inc., Microsoft Corp., and CoreWeave,\n\n Inc. identical subpoenas seeking documents about their use of NVIDIA hardware and software. Neural\n\n AI, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 26-241, Docket No. 1-3 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2026); Neural AI, LLC v.\n\n Microsoft Corp., No. 26-242, Docket No. 1-3 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2026); Neural AI, LLC v. CoreWeave,\n\n Inc., No. 26-323, Docket No. 1-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2026).\n\n B. Neural\u2019s Unexplained and Inexplicable Eight-Month Delay in Serving Subpoenas\n\n Although it subpoenaed Amazon, Microsoft and CoreWeave in October 2025, Neural served no\n\n subpoenas on other customers for eight months. Neural now claims in its motion that \u201cOpenAI is one of\n\n NVIDIA\u2019s most significant and strategic partners, customers, and end users,\u201d information it does not and\n\n cannot pretend to have only recently learned. Mot. at 8:6. There was thus no reason for Neural not to\n\n subpoena OAI International in 2025. But Neural didn\u2019t subpoena OAI International, or anyone else\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 2 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 10 of 27\n\n\n beyond Amazon, Microsoft and CoreWeave. Although OAI International only has the public record of\n\n Neural\u2019s subpoenas, that public record shows no action by Neural from October 2025 to June 2026.\n\n OAI International repeatedly asked Neural to explain this long delay, see, e.g., Docket Nos. 1-22, 1-24,\n\n but Neural repeatedly declined to do so. See, e.g., Docket Nos. 1-23, 1-25.\n\n C.\u200b Neural\u2019s Eleventh-Hour Subpoena Campaign\n\n In late June 2026, Neural woke from its subpoena slumber. On June 24 and 25, Neural served\n\n identical subpoenas on OAI International, Oracle Corp., Tesla Inc., Google, LLC, Meta Platforms, and\n\n x.AI Corp. Docket No. 1-7; Neural AI, LLC v. Oracle Corp., No. 26-325, Docket No. 1-6 (W.D. Tex.\n\n Aug. 18, 2026); Neural AI, LLC v. Tesla Inc., No. 26-318, Docket No. 1-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2026);\n\n Neural AI, LLC v. Google, LLC, No. 26-324, Docket No. 1-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2026); Neural AI, LLC\n\n v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 26-322, Docket No. 1-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2026); Neural AI, LLC v. x.AI\n\n Corp., No. 26-319, Docket No. 1-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2026). Although they used some different\n\n wording, Neural\u2019s June 2026 subpoenas addressed the same subject matter as Neural\u2019s October 2025\n\n subpoenas: hardware and software interacting with NVIDIA chips. Compare supra with supra \u00a7 B.\n\n D.\u200b OAI International\u2019s Objections to Neural\u2019s Initial Set of Subpoenas\n\n On July 16, 2026, OAI International served timely objections and responses to Neural\u2019s\n\n document and deposition subpoenas. E.g., Docket No. 1-11. On July 22, 2026, the parties met and\n\n conferred regarding these subpoenas. Although the parties discussed other aspects of the subpoenas\n\n during this meet-and-confer call, OAI International emphasized that the subpoenas\u2019 place of compliance\n\n in Austin, Texas was improper, that the subpoenas were invalid for this reason and that OAI International\n\n could not compromise on that point, but that OAI International would not object on these grounds to\n\n subpoenas with a place of compliance in San Francisco. See Docket No. 1-22 at 2.1\n\n //\n\n //\n\n 1\n Neural claims that OAI International \u201cdeclined to engage substantively regarding the requests\n and topics\u201d (Mot. at 5:2-4), but that is not so. See, e.g., Docket No. 1-22 at 2. Neural also calls its\n incorrect place of compliance an \u201calleged enforceability issue,\u201d but its service of new subpoenas with a\n San Francisco place of compliance, and its bringing this motion before this Court, confirms Neural\u2019s\n agreement that its first subpoenas lacked a valid place of compliance. See, e.g., Russell v. Maman, No.\n 18-6691, 2021 WL 3212646 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2021) (place of compliance controls jurisdiction).\n\n \u200b \u2013 3 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 11 of 27\n\n\n E.\u200b Neural\u2019s Second Set of Subpoenas and Its Failure to Narrow or Meaningfully Confer\n\n On July 24, 2026, Neural served new subpoenas on OAI International, seeking the same\n\n documents and testimony but now providing a place of compliance in San Francisco. Docket No. 1-6\n\n at 2, 15; compare Docket No. 1-7 with Docket No. 1-6. Even before OAI International\u2019s deadline for its\n\n responses and objections, Neural claimed that it had no time to meet and confer or to narrow its requests.\n\n On August 5, Neural wrote OAI International that, \u201c[b]ecause document discovery in the underlying\n\n action closes on August 11, Neural AI must be prepared to move to compel on Monday, August 10, to\n\n preserve its rights,\u201d and would do so \u201cunless OpenAI\u2019s forthcoming responses reflect materially different\n\n positions from those previously asserted or otherwise provide a concrete basis to believe the parties can\n\n promptly resolve the outstanding issues.\u201d Docket No. 1-13 at 2. Neural declined to narrow its requests\n\n at all, but instead offered a series of questions and \u201ca draft declaration\u201d that OAI International could\n\n execute in lieu of the subpoena\u2014but which sought information not called for by the subpoenas, thus\n\n representing a broadening rather than a narrowing. Docket Nos. 1-14, 1-15; see Docket No. 1-24.\n\n On August 7, OAI International served timely objections and responses to the July 24 subpoenas.\n\n Docket No. 1-10. OAI International also explained that Neural\u2019s questions and draft declaration were\n\n not helpful to the meet-and-confer process, because they bore \u201clittle relation to the contents of the\n\n subpoenas, and serve only to confirm that Neural AI is on a fishing expedition.\u201d Docket No. 1-22 at 3.\n\n OAI International further explained that, although Neural\u2019s questions and draft declaration were not\n\n helpful, if Neural \u201cis seeking discovery rather than a fight, it will provide OAI International with a\n\n focused list of the information Neural AI believes is truly required for the prosecution of this action,\n\n along with a clear explanation of why it needs this information for the litigation.\u201d Id. at 3.2\n\n Neural and OAI International exchanged further emails and letters, but did not change their\n\n respective views. Neural insisted that OAI International agree to respond to the full sun-moon-stars\n\n scope of the subpoenas or execute Neural\u2019s draft declaration to Neural\u2019s pre-approved satisfaction (see\n\n Docket Nos. 1-23, 1-25), while OAI International explained that it could not do either of those, and\n\n //\n\n Neural claims that it \u201cexplained the technology and relevance of customer deployment\n 2\n\n\n evidence, and identified the implicated OpenAI products and systems.\u201d Mot. at 2:7-8. Not so: OAI\n International repeatedly asked for this information (e.g., Docket Nos. 1-22, 1-24), but never received it.\n\n \u200b \u2013 4 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 12 of 27\n\n\n again encouraged Neural to provide \u201ca focused list of the information Neural AI believes is truly\n\n required for the prosecution of this action.\u201d Docket No. 1-24 at 2. Neural never did.\n\n F. Neural\u2019s Final Offer Seeks Information Not Called For By Its Subpoenas\n\n Instead, on August 14, Neural made its \u201cbest and final offer before a motion to compel,\u201d for OAI\n\n International \u201cto produce documents sufficient to show the information sought in [Neural\u2019s] previously\n\n circulated draft declaration.\u201d Docket Nos. 1-26; 1-27. But as OAI International explained in response,\n\n \u201cthe information sought by the draft declaration is not a narrowed version of the requests in [Neural\u2019s]\n\n subpoenas. To the contrary, it is a broadening, as the draft declaration seeks information not sought by\n\n [Neural\u2019s] subpoenas.\u201d Docket No. 1-28 at 2. OAI International thus could not accept this offer. See id.\n\n G. Neural\u2019s Motions to Compel\n\n Neural filed this motion seeking to compel OAI International to produce \u201cdocuments responsive\n\n to Requests 1-12\u201d and \u201ca knowledgeable witness on Deposition Topics 1-5\u201d\u2014that is, the full\n\n sun-moon-stars sought by Neural\u2019s two subpoenas, with no narrowing. Mot. at 2:19-21. Including this\n\n motion, Neural AI has filed nine motions to compel against subpoena respondents, the eight others in the\n\n Western District of Texas, against Amazon (Neural AI, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 26-241 (W.D.\n\n Tex.)); Microsoft (Neural AI, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 26-242 (W.D. Tex.)); Tesla (Neural AI, LLC v.\n\n Tesla Inc., No. 26-318 (W.D. Tex.)); X.AI (Neural AI, LLC v. x.AI Corp., No. 26-319 (W.D. Tex.)); Meta\n\n (Neural AI, LLC v. Meta Platforms, No. 26-322 (W.D. Tex.)); CoreWeave (Neural AI, LLC v.\n\n CoreWeave, Inc., No. 26-323 (W.D. Tex.)); Google (Neural AI, LLC v. Google, LLC, No. 26-324 (W.D.\n\n Tex.)); and Oracle (Neural AI, LLC v. Oracle Corp., No. 26-325 (W.D. Tex.)). All remain pending.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n I. Neural Failed to Comply With This Court\u2019s Local Rules\n\n Neural\u2019s out-of-state counsel\u2014none of its seven attorneys list a California address\u2014do not\n\n attempt to comply with the Local Rules of this Court, and do not appear to have read them. Neural\u2019s\n\n repeated failure to respect the rules of this Court is sufficient reason to deny its motion.\n\n A. Neural\u2019s Motion Failed to Comply With Local Civil Rule 37-2\n\n Neural\u2019s motion fails to comply with this Court\u2019s Local Civil Rule 37-2. Rule 37-2, entitled\n\n \u201cForm of Motions to Compel,\u201d requires that:\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 5 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 13 of 27\n\n\n In addition to complying with applicable provisions of Civil L.R. 7, a motion to compel\n further responses to discovery requests must set forth each request in full, followed\n immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto. For each such request, the\n moving papers must detail the basis for the party\u2019s contention that it is entitled to the\n requested discovery and must show how the proportionality and other requirements of\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) are satisfied.\n\n Loc. Civ. R. 37-2. Neural does not set forth its twelve document requests and five deposition topics \u201cin\n\n full,\u201d instead lumping them together into categories (Mot. at 9:1-16, 10:4-14), and fails to provide OAI\n\n International\u2019s \u201cobjections and/or responses\u201d to them. Neural\u2019s failure to follow this Court\u2019s rules\n\n allows Neural to present its requests as more reasonable than they actually are: although the categories\n\n Neural sets forth in the motion are themselves overbroad and unreasonable, the actual contents of its\n\n requests are much more so. Compare Mot. at 9:1-16 with Docket No. 1-6 at 13-15; Mot. at 10:4-14 with\n\n Docket No. 1-6 at 24. It does not matter that Neural attached the subpoenas and OAI International\u2019s\n\n responses (Docket Nos. 1-6, 1-10), because even \u201cattaching the entirety of [OAI International\u2019s]\n\n responses as exhibits, without more, is insufficient to comply with the local rule.\u201d Muhammad v.\n\n Koening, No. 24-7884, 2026 WL 2296681, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2026). Neural \u201cfails to explain\n\n how each of [OAI International\u2019s] discovery responses for which [it] seeks to compel further responses\n\n are specifically and individually insufficient,\u201d instead grouping \u201cthem together by their alleged\n\n deficiencies using broad and general terms.\u201d Id. \u201cThat\u2019s not good enough for a motion to compel,\u201d\n\n because a \u201cmotion to compel is supposed to discuss the discovery requests at issue and explain why they\n\n seek relevant and proportional discovery.\u201d Yotta Techs. Inc. v. Evolve Bank & Tr., No. 24-6456, 2025\n\n WL 3496685, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2025). Neural \u201ccan\u2019t just gesture in the general direction of a big\n\n pile of discovery requests and announce they\u2019re all relevant\u201d but has \u201cto discuss them.\u201d Id. \u201cAny motion\n\n to compel must comply with Local Rule 37-2\u2019s format requirements, so that the Court can easily\n\n ascertain [the responding party\u2019s] specific objections to specific responses, what additional documents\n\n are sought, and the justification for obtaining such documents.\u201d Sanchez-Martinez v. Freitas, No.\n\n 22-7144, 2024 WL 4933339, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024). \u201cFailure to comply with these basic\n\n requirements is basis alone for denying the motion[] to compel.\u201d Muhammad, 2026 WL 2296681, at *7.\n\n //\n\n //\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 6 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 14 of 27\n\n\n B. Neural Failed to Comply With Local Civil Rule 11-3\n\n \u201cAn attorney who is not a member of the bar of this Court may apply to appear pro hac vice in a\n\n particular action in this district,\u201d but must \u201csubmit the application and admission fee at the time of the\n\n filing of a complaint or the attorney\u2019s first appearance in the case.\u201d Loc. Civ. R. 11-3(a), (b). Neural\n\n failed to follow this rule. Of the seven attorneys appearing for Neural in this action, only one lists a\n\n California bar number; none of the remaining six have applied for admission pro hac vice. See Mot. at\n\n 13. This Court\u2019s rules prohibit this behavior for a very good reason: if out-of-state attorneys can appear\n\n before this Court without seeking admission pro hac vice, they can avoid having future applications\n\n \u201cdenied on the grounds that they are regularly engaged in the practice of law in California.\u201d Koji IP, LLC\n\n v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 24-3089, 2025 WL 917110, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2025), motion\n\n for relief from judgment denied, 2026 WL 793025 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026). Unless all of Neural\u2019s\n\n attorneys appearing in this action promptly seek admission pro hac vice, the Court can and should deny\n\n its motion for failure to follow this rule as well.\n\n C. Neural Failed to Comply With Local Civil Rule 5-5\n\n Except for papers served through ECF, this Court requires a \u201c[c]ertificate of service stating the\n\n date, place, and manner of service, and the name, street address, or electronic address of each person\n\n served, certified by the person who made service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a71746.\u201d Loc. Civ. R. 5-5(b).\n\n Neural repeatedly failed to comply with this rule. In its case-initiating filings Neural claimed, without\n\n verification or specifics, that its motion \u201cwas served on counsel for OAI International, Inc.\u201d on August\n\n 17. Mot. at 14. This was incorrect. Two days later, after the Court ordered Neural to file a certificate of\n\n service, Docket No. 3, Neural served OAI International by hand and filed the process server\u2019s certificate\n\n of service, which met the requirements of Loc. Civ. R. 5-5(b). Docket No. 4. Neural then filed another\n\n certificate of service, which again failed to meet the requirements of Loc. Civ. R. 5-5(b), and which\n\n repeated the incorrect claim that, \u201c[o]n August 17, 2026, Petitioner served counsel for OAI International,\n\n Inc. by electronic mail with the miscellaneous action, including Petitioner\u2019s Motion to Compel,\n\n supporting declaration and exhibits, and proposed order.\u201d Docket No. 5. This claim was incorrect for\n\n two reasons. First, service of case-initiating documents falls under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, not Rule 5, as\n\n Neural acknowledged by eventually hiring a process server to serve under Rule 5. Supra. And second,\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 7 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 15 of 27\n\n\n even Rule 5 allows only service by \u201celectronic means that the person consented to in writing\u201d\u2014consent\n\n which Neural has not requested. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E); see, e.g., AboveGEM, Inc. v. Organo Gold\n\n Mgmt., Ltd., No. 19-4789, 2019 WL 3859012, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2019). Some Courts have local\n\n rules allowing electronic service. E.g., E.D. Tex. Loc. R. CV-5(d). This Court does not. See supra.\n\n II.\u200b Neural Served Its Subpoenas Too Late For OAI International to Comply With Them\n\n A \u201csubpoena should be served in advance of its return date so that the person subject to the\n\n subpoena has a reasonable time to comply.\u201d Gjovik v. Apple Inc., No. 23-4597, 2026 WL 1025553, at *2\n\n (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2026) (quoting 9 Moore\u2019s Federal Practice Civil \u00a7 45.21 (2026)). Neural failed to do\n\n so, further requiring denial of its motion. Neural admits that a \u201ccentral issue in the Underlying Action is\n\n how and when NVIDIA\u2019s accused hardware and software operate in customers\u2019 real-world systems,\u201d and\n\n further admits that \u201cNVIDIA has stated throughout discovery\u2014and represented to the Court during a\n\n sealed discovery conference on September 8, 2025\u2014that NAI would need to seek from customers and\n\n end users any discovery showing how NVIDIA hardware and software are actually deployed.\u201d Mot. at\n\n 1:10-11, 3:13-15; supra \u00a7 A. NVIDIA\u2019s September 8 disclosure was enough for Neural to subpoena\n\n third-parties Amazon, Microsoft and CoreWeave in October 2025 (supra \u00a7 A), and Neural could have\n\n subpoenaed OAI International then too\u2014but, for reasons Neural has never explained, it chose not to\n\n subpoena OAI International for eight more months, until late June 2026. Supra \u00a7 B. As a result of\n\n Neural\u2019s unexplained delay, as well as Neural\u2019s initial failure to provide a valid place of compliance and\n\n thus a valid subpoena, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2), by the time Neural served valid subpoenas, OAI\n\n International had only three weeks and a weekend\u2014from service on Friday, July 24 to filing of this\n\n motion on Monday, August 17\u2014to parse Neural\u2019s complicated requests, collect documents, and prepare\n\n testimony. This was not a \u201creasonable time to comply.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i).\n\n Not lacking for chutzpah, Neural cast its delay as advantage, declining to narrow and threatening\n\n to move to compel because, it said, deadlines forced its hand. E.g., Docket No. 1-13 at 2; 1-23 at 2;\n\n supra \u00a7 E. But Neural cannot engineer its own emergency by delaying discovery; to the contrary, \u201cwhen\n\n parties delay discovery for any reason, they do so at their peril.\u201d Wyles v. Sussman, 445 F. Supp. 3d 751,\n\n 756 (C.D. Cal. 2020). Implementing this principle, \u201cRule 45 provides that a Court must quash or\n\n modify a subpoena\u201d which \u201cfails to allow a reasonable time to comply.\u201d AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 8 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 16 of 27\n\n\n Med., Inc., No. 12-3393, 2014 WL 6706898, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n 45(d)(3)). Neural\u2019s subpoenas were \u201cpatently unreasonable\u201d given \u201cthe complexity of the production\n\n sought\u201d and \u201cfails to allow a reasonable time for compliance.\u201d BNSF Ry. Co. v. Ctr. for Asbestos Related\n\n Disease, Inc., No. 19-40, 2022 WL 1442854, at *4 (D. Mont. May 6, 2022). \u201cGiving plaintiffs every\n\n benefit of the doubt in regard to the earliest service date of the subpoenas, and in light of the complexity\n\n of the subpoenas which require a great deal of document investigation by attorney-witness deponents,\n\n they have provided an insufficient showing for initiating this discovery at the eleventh hour, only six\n\n weeks before discovery cutoff in a case that is\u201d two years old. Mori v. Baroni, No. 07-295, 2008 WL\n\n 2509143, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2008). Neural\u2019s \u201clack of prior planning is not this court\u2019s\n\n emergency.\u201d Id. For this reason too, the Court can and should deny Neural\u2019s motion to compel.\n\n III.\u200b Neural Failed to Show Relevance or Proportionality\n\n A.\u200b Neural\u2019s Subpoenas Are a Fishing Expedition\n\n A \u201cparty may subpoena only information that is relevant to the claims and defenses in the action,\n\n and is proportional to the needs of the case.\u201d Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., No. 16-80170, 2016 WL\n\n 5870010, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)); see Intermarine, LLC v.\n\n Spliethoff Bevrachtingskantoor, B.V., 123 F. Supp. 3d 1215, 1217 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). The \u201crequested\n\n discovery must be relevant to the subject matter involved in a pending action and must not be based on\n\n the requesting party\u2019s mere suspicion or speculation.\u201d Belling v. DDP Holdings, Inc., No. 12-1855, 2013\n\n WL 12140986, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2013) (citing Sirota v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp., No.\n\n 05-3296, 2006 WL 708910, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2006)). But Neural\u2019s own motion admits that its\n\n subpoenas depend on \u201cmere suspicion or speculation.\u201d Belling, 2013 WL 12140986, at *3. According\n\n to Neural itself, Neural does not know \u201cwhether OpenAI\u2019s systems perform the asserted method steps\u201d it\n\n accuses of infringement (Mot. at 9:16-18 (emphasis added)), and seeks \u201cOpenAI\u2019s documents and\n\n testimony [to] show whether and how often the accused methods are actually performed by OpenAI.\u201d\n\n Id. at 8:13-15 (emphasis added). Neural hopes the Court will look past those telltale \u201cwhethers,\u201d but it\n\n should not: the telltale \u201cwhethers\u201d dispose of Neural\u2019s motion by confirming that Neural has no idea\n\n whether OAI International does anything allegedly infringing or not. See id.\n\n //\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 9 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 17 of 27\n\n\n It is actually worse than that: Neural not only has no idea whether OAI International does\n\n anything allegedly infringing, but also has no particular reason to think that it does. During the parties\u2019\n\n meet-and-confer discussions, OAI International repeatedly asked Neural to provide any reasons it had to\n\n believe that OAI International did anything that Neural claimed infringed, and Neural repeatedly\n\n declined to do so. See, e.g., Docket Nos. 1-24 at 2, 1-28 at 2. Neural\u2019s silence continued through its\n\n motion, which mentions that OpenAI is a well-known NVIDIA customer, e.g., Mot. at 3, 8, but carefully\n\n stops short of claiming any basis for believing that OAI International uses NVIDIA chips in an allegedly\n\n infringing manner. See generally id. Neural thus admits that it has no reason to believe that any OAI\n\n International documents or testimony have any relevance to any claims and defenses in the underlying\n\n action\u2014but nevertheless asks the Court to order OAI International to produce them all anyway. In other\n\n words, Neural admits that it is on a fishing expedition. \u201cCourts need not allow \u2018fishing expeditions.\u2019\u201d\n\n Bluestone Innovations LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc, No. 13-1770, 2013 WL 6354419, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5,\n\n 2013) (quoting Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004)). The \u201cliberal discovery\n\n standard is not so liberal as to allow a party [to] explore matter which \u2018does not presently appear\n\n germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.\u2019\u201d Bluestone, 2013 WL 6354419, at *2\n\n (quoting Food Lion v. United Food & Commr. Workers Int\u2019l Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (D.C. Cir.\n\n 1997)). That is precisely what Neural asks the Court to order here.\n\n B.\u200b Neural\u2019s Subpoenas Are Not Proportionate to the Needs of the Underlying Case\n\n In \u201corder to succeed on a motion to compel, a moving party bears the burden of not only\n\n demonstrating relevance, but also demonstrating that it has satisfied proportionality and other\n\n requirements of Rule 26.\u201d Shared P\u2019ship v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 22-2366, 2023 WL 2526645, at *3\n\n (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2023). \u201c[C]ourts are required to limit discovery if its burden or expense outweighs\n\n its likely benefit; this is \u2018the essence of proportionality,\u2019 a frequently ignored or overlooked discovery\n\n principle.\u201d Richards v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., No. 23-145, 2024 WL 4375785, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct.\n\n 2, 2024) (quoting Om Recs., LLC v. OM Dev., SAS, No. 23-4506, 2024 WL 4100870, at *3 (N.D. Cal.\n\n Sept. 6, 2024)). Neural fails this test as well.\n\n Neural cannot show a \u201clikely benefit\u201d of the discovery it seeks, as it admits that it has no reason\n\n to believe that OAI International uses NVIDIA chips in an allegedly infringing manner. Richards, 2024\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 10 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 18 of 27\n\n\n WL 4375785, at *1; see supra \u00a7 III.A. But even if Neural could show a \u201clikely benefit\u201d from discovery,\n\n any such benefit would be far outweighed by the \u201cburden or expense\u201d of Neural\u2019s proposed discovery.\n\n Richards, 2024 WL 4375785, at *1. To see that burden, the Court need not look beyond Neural\u2019s own\n\n meet-and-confer correspondence, which describes its subpoenas as seeking \u201cwhat NVIDIA GPUs and\n\n software OAI uses, how OAI uses them together, whether OAI modifies or customizes the NVIDIA\n\n software, and how OAI\u2019s workloads and data are processed using those products.\u201d Docket No. 1-25 at 3.\n\n This scope could call for nearly every document in the possession of a company operating AI models.\n\n \u201cThe subpoenas as drafted are overbroad, sweeping in vast amounts of irrelevant information, and as\n\n such are not proportional to the needs of the case.\u201d Russo v. Fed. Med. Servs., Inc., No. 24-748, 2024\n\n WL 4633641, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2024). The Court can deny Neural\u2019s motion for this reason too.\n\n IV.\u200b Neural\u2019s Subpoenas are Unduly Burdensome\n\n Neural\u2019s subpoenas are also unduly burdensome. The \u201ccourt must quash or modify a subpoena\n\n that imposes an undue burden.\u201d Monterey Bay Mil. Hous., LLC v. Pinnacle Monterey LLC, No.\n\n 15-80123, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2015) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)). \u201c\u2018[A]n\n\n evaluation of undue burden requires the court to weigh the burden to the subpoenaed party against the\n\n value of the information to the serving party,\u2019 and requires the court\u2019s consideration of \u2018such factors as\n\n relevance, the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the document request, the time period\n\n covered by it, the particularity with which the documents are described and the burden imposed.\u2019\u201d\n\n Huynh v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., No. 18-1631, 2019 WL 13221170, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019)\n\n (alteration in original) (quoting Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 637 (C.D. Cal. 2005)).3\n\n A.\u200b Document Request No. 1\n\n Request No. 1 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to identify all software, frameworks, libraries, APIs,\n\n scripts, Source Code, configuration files, and custom code You use to perform computations on NVIDIA\n\n 3\n Neural cites 611 Carpenter LLC v. Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co., No. 23-823, 2024 WL\n 1977160, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2024), for the proposition that OAI International somehow waived\n any burden arguments in its responses and objections. Even assuming that 611 Carpenter applies in this\n Court, it says nothing of the sort. There, the Court found that the \u201cthird-party entities have not borne\n their burden of substantiating their objections\u201d because the \u201crecipients of the third-party subpoenas have\n not objected to the scope of the subpoenas\u201d at all, even by the time of the motion. Id. at *2. 611\n Carpenter cannot remotely support Neural\u2019s claim that OAI International\u2019s timely responses and\n objections somehow waived its burden arguments. See Mot. at 11:7-9.\n\n \u200b \u2013 11 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 19 of 27\n\n\n GPUs.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 12. Neural defines \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d with a wall of text including more than\n\n 240 individually named devices. Id. at 5-7. And although the request is phrased in the present tense, it\n\n calls for documents covering the period from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the present.\u201d Id. at 11. Request\n\n No. 1 thus seeks to require OAI International to parse eight different kinds of documents, cross-reference\n\n them with more than 240 kinds of devices over eight years, and produce each one\u2014whether or not they\n\n relate to any alleged infringement. The \u201cdocuments required to be searched, collected, and reviewed are\n\n unduly burdensome,\u201d and it \u201cwould take significant time and resources\u201d even to understand what\n\n documents Neural seeks in this request, let alone \u201cto locate and compile\u201d any responsive documents.\n\n Monterey Bay, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n B.\u200b Document Request No. 2\n\n Request No. 2 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show whether You use NVIDIA\u2019s Aerial, Clara\n\n Parabricks, cuBLAS, cuDNN, cuFFT, cuQuantum, cuSOLVER, cuSPARSE, Drive, DriveWorks,\n\n Holoscan, Isaac, Isaac Lab, Maxine, Memory Map, Merlin, Metropolis, Modulus, Monai, Morpheus,\n\n NeMo, PyTorch, RAPIDS, Riva, Runtime Driver, TensorFlow, TensorRT, Triton, VSS (Deepstream), or\n\n any other NVIDIA software as part of computations You perform using NVIDIA GPUs.\u201d Docket No.\n\n 1-6 at 12. Again, the definition of \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d includes more than 240 individually named devices\n\n (id. at 5-7); Neural does not define the remaining 29 products by version, date or anything else, requiring\n\n OAI International to parse those products and match them against the 240 NVIDIA GPUs. Again,\n\n although the request is phrased in the present tense, it calls for documents covering the period from\n\n \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the present.\u201d Id. at 11. Again, it \u201cwould take significant time and resources\u201d\n\n even to understand what documents Neural seeks in this request, let alone \u201cto locate and compile\u201d any\n\n responsive documents. Monterey Bay, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n C.\u200b Document Request No. 3\n\n Request No. 3 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show whether You use sample Source Code\n\n provided by NVIDIA as part of computations You perform using NVIDIA GPUs.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at\n\n 12. Again, the definition of \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d includes more than 240 individually named devices. Id.\n\n at 5-7. Neural\u2019s definition of \u201cSource Code\u201d is similarly broad (id. at 8-9), but it provides no definition\n\n for \u201csample.\u201d Again, although the request is phrased in the present tense, it calls for documents covering\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 12 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 20 of 27\n\n\n the period from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the present.\u201d Id. at 11. Again, it \u201cwould take significant time\n\n and resources\u201d even to understand what documents Neural seeks in this request, let alone \u201cto locate and\n\n compile\u201d any responsive documents. Monterey Bay, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n D.\u200b Document Request No. 4\n\n Request No. 4 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show whether and how any software You use to\n\n perform computations on NVIDIA GPUs calls, invokes, interfaces with, wraps, depends on, sits on top\n\n of, modifies, extends, or implements functionality provided by CUDA, cuDNN, TensorRT, CUDA\n\n libraries, CUDA drivers, CUDA runtime, CUDA applications or frameworks or any other NVIDIA\n\n software.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 12. Again, the definition of \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d includes more than 240\n\n individually named devices. Id. at 5-7. Neural does not define the remaining eight products by version,\n\n date or anything else, requiring OAI International to parse those products and match them against the\n\n 240 NVIDIA GPUs. Again, although the request is phrased in the present tense, it calls for documents\n\n covering the period from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the present.\u201d Id. at 11. Again, it \u201cwould take\n\n significant time and resources\u201d to understand what documents Neural seeks in this request, let alone \u201cto\n\n locate and compile\u201d any responsive documents. Monterey Bay, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n E.\u200b Document Request No. 5\n\n Request No. 5 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show the architecture, design, data flow, control\n\n flow, and execution flow of any system in which You use NVIDIA GPUs to perform computations,\n\n including diagrams, technical specifications, design documents, Powerpoints, slide decks, internal and\n\n external presentations, Source Code, configuration files, build files, deployment files, runtime logs, and\n\n profiler traces.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 12. Again, the definition of \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d includes more than\n\n 240 devices. Id. at 5-7. The phrase \u201cany system in which You use NVIDIA GPUs to perform\n\n computations\u201d is breathtakingly broad, and could include even employees\u2019 personal computers with\n\n hardware graphics acceleration. Again, although the request is phrased in the present tense, it calls for\n\n documents covering the period from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the present.\u201d Id. at 11. Again, it \u201cwould\n\n take significant time and resources\u201d to understand what documents Neural seeks in this request, let alone\n\n \u201cto locate and compile\u201d any responsive documents. Monterey Bay, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n //\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 13 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 21 of 27\n\n\n F.\u200b Document Request No. 6\n\n Request No. 6 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show whether computations You performed using\n\n NVIDIA GPUs involved artificial neural networks, neural-network computational layers or computations\n\n with outputs as inputs for other neurons or layers.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 13. Again, the definition of\n\n \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d includes more than 240 devices. Id. at 5-7. Again, the phrase \u201ccomputations You\n\n performed using NVIDIA GPUs\u201d is breathtakingly broad, and there is no definition to help parse\n\n \u201cartificial neural networks, neural-network computational layers or computations with outputs as inputs\n\n for other neurons or layers.\u201d Again, although the request is phrased in the present tense, it calls for\n\n documents covering the period from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the present.\u201d Id. at 11. Again, it \u201cwould\n\n take significant time and resources\u201d to understand what documents Neural seeks in this request, let alone\n\n \u201cto locate and compile\u201d any responsive documents. Monterey Bay, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n G.\u200b Document Request No. 7\n\n Request No. 7 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show whether You use a pointer to data stored in\n\n memory (e.g. memory bank or partition), using as an input to a subsequent computational layer the\n\n pointer to output data from a GPU computation, using pointers in neural network computations,\n\n swapping an input pointer with the pointer to data output from a GPU computation, pointer swapping,\n\n pointer rotation, buffer swapping, ping-pong buffers, double or triple buffering, alternating input/output\n\n buffers, or any other technique in which output data from one computation, layer, iteration, time step, or\n\n cycle becomes input data for a later computation, layer, iteration, time step, or cycle.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at\n\n 13. Again, this request is breathtakingly broad, as myriad programming languages and implementations\n\n use \u201cpointer[s] to data stored in memory\u201d as well as the other items on Neural\u2019s list in this request. See,\n\n e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointer_(computer_programming). Again, although the request is\n\n phrased in the present tense, it calls for documents covering the period from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the\n\n present.\u201d Id. at 11. Again, it \u201cwould take significant time and resources\u201d to understand what documents\n\n Neural seeks in this request, let alone \u201cto locate and compile\u201d any responsive documents. Monterey Bay,\n\n 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n //\n\n //\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 14 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 22 of 27\n\n\n H.\u200b Document Request No. 8\n\n Request No. 8 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show whether You store input data, output data,\n\n intermediate results, tensors, activations, weights, parameters, internal variables, GPU programs,\n\n kernels, textures, shaders, or other GPU-computation-related data in separate, partitioned, logical,\n\n physical, first/second, input/output, texture, shader, shared, global, device, host, pinned, GPU RAM,\n\n GPU cache(s), or unified memory regions (shared by CPU and GPU) when performing computations\n\n using NVIDIA GPUs.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 13. Again, the definition of \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d includes more\n\n than 240 individually named devices. Id. at 5-7. Again, this list of interlocking topics is breathtakingly\n\n broad, as myriad languages and implementations \u201cstore\u201d (for example) \u201cinput data\u201d in \u201cseparate . . .\n\n memory regions.\u201d See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_safety. Again, although the request\n\n is phrased in the present tense, it calls for documents covering the period from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to\n\n the present.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 11. Again, it \u201cwould take significant time and resources\u201d to understand\n\n what documents Neural seeks in this request, let alone \u201cto locate and compile\u201d any responsive\n\n documents. Monterey Bay, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n I.\u200b Document Request No. 9\n\n Request No. 9 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show how input data is received, acquired, stored,\n\n transferred, copied, streamed, prefetched, staged, queued, or loaded from CPU memory, host memory,\n\n system memory, storage, sensors, cameras, or other input sources to NVIDIA GPU memory\u2014including\n\n GPU RAM (e.g. GPU HBM, GDDR) and/or GPU cache(s)\u2014before, during, or in parallel with\n\n computations You perform using NVIDIA GPUs.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 13. Again, the definition of\n\n \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d includes more than 240 individually named devices. Id. at 5-7. Again, this list of\n\n interlocking topics is breathtakingly broad, and includes literally every single time, and every single\n\n way, that data has passed from a CPU to a GPU or vice versa. Again, although the request is phrased in\n\n the present tense, it calls for documents covering the period from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the present.\u201d\n\n Id. at 11. Again, it \u201cwould take significant time and resources\u201d to understand what documents Neural\n\n seeks in this request, let alone \u201cto locate and compile\u201d any responsive documents. Monterey Bay, 2015\n\n WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n //\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 15 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 23 of 27\n\n\n J.\u200b Document Request No. 10\n\n Request No. 10 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show how output data from a GPU\n\n computation(s), intermediate results of GPU computations, tensors, buffers, activations, variables, or\n\n other computation results are stored, transferred, copied, streamed, written back, returned, accumulated,\n\n reused, or made available including asynchronously from NVIDIA GPU memory to CPU memory, host\n\n memory, system memory, storage, display, network, or another memory location before, during, or in\n\n parallel with computations You perform using NVIDIA GPUs\u2014and also including in the opposite\n\n direction, copying data from CPU or host or other memory to a queue for GPU computation while other\n\n GPU computations are occurring.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 14. Again, the definition of \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d\n\n includes more than 240 devices. Id. at 5-7. Again, this list of interlocking topics is breathtakingly\n\n broad, and includes literally every single time, and every single way, that data has passed from a CPU to\n\n a GPU or vice versa. Again, although the request is phrased in the present tense, it calls for documents\n\n covering the period from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the present.\u201d Id. at 11. Again, it \u201cwould take\n\n significant time and resources\u201d to understand what documents Neural seeks in this request, let alone \u201cto\n\n locate and compile\u201d any responsive documents. Monterey Bay, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n K.\u200b Document Request No. 11\n\n Request No. 11 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show how computations You perform using\n\n NVIDIA GPUs are scheduled, ordered, controlled, queued, synchronized, parallelized, launched,\n\n interrupted, resumed, or executed, including through kernels, CUDA streams, CUDA graphs, events,\n\n threads, controllers, schedulers, compilers, runtimes, inference engines, run lists, run engines, or custom\n\n software.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 14. Again, the definition of \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d includes more than 240\n\n individually named devices. Id. at 5-7. Neural does not define the remaining 13 products by version,\n\n date or anything else, requiring OAI International to parse those products and match them against the\n\n 240 NVIDIA GPUs. Again, although the request is phrased in the present tense, it calls for documents\n\n covering the period from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the present.\u201d Id. at 11. Again, it \u201cwould take\n\n significant time and resources\u201d to understand what documents Neural seeks in this request, let alone \u201cto\n\n locate and compile\u201d any responsive documents. Monterey Bay, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n //\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 16 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 24 of 27\n\n\n L.\u200b Document Request No. 12\n\n Request No. 12 seeks \u201cDocuments sufficient to show whether and how user inputs, user\n\n commands, configuration changes, parameter changes, model changes, computational-element changes,\n\n input changes, interruptions, or display/output changes affect computations You perform using NVIDIA\n\n GPUs and/or queue them for GPU computation.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 14. Again, the definition of\n\n \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d includes more than 240 individually named devices. Id. at 5-7. Again, this list of\n\n interlocking topics is breathtakingly broad, and includes literally every single time, and every single\n\n way, that anything including \u201cuser inputs\u201d could \u201caffect computations\u201d\u2014which includes everything.\n\n Again, although the request is phrased in the present tense, it calls for documents covering the period\n\n from \u201cSeptember 13, 2018 to the present.\u201d Id. at 11. Again, it \u201cwould take significant time and\n\n resources\u201d to understand what documents Neural seeks in this request, let alone \u201cto locate and compile\u201d\n\n any responsive documents. Monterey Bay, 2015 WL 2229229, at *2.\n\n M.\u200b Deposition Topic No. 1\n\n Deposition Topic No. 1 requests a witness knowledgeable about \u201cThe NVIDIA software and\n\n libraries You use to perform computations, including but not limited to NVIDIA\u2019s Aerial, Clara\n\n Parabricks, cuBLAS, cuDNN, cuFFT, cuQuantum, cuSOLVER, cuSPARSE, Drive, DriveWorks,\n\n Holoscan, Isaac, Isaac Lab, Maxine, Memory Map, Merlin, Metropolis, Modulus, Monai, Morpheus,\n\n NeMo, PyTorch, RAPIDS, Riva, Runtime Driver, TensorFlow, TensorRT, Triton, VSS (Deepstream).\u201d\n\n Docket No. 1-6 at 22. Although Neural names (but does not define) 29 products, it also requires the\n\n witness to be knowledgeable about all \u201cNVIDIA software and libraries You use to perform\n\n computations.\u201d Neural did not provide a time limitation for this topic. This topic is \u201cunworkable,\u201d as it\n\n would \u201crequire a witness to memorize reams of detailed information concerning lengthy periods of\n\n time\u201d at a level of detail that \u201cmakes it unlikely that any human being could be prepared to testify\n\n competently to the scope.\u201d Morris v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 23-3277, 2025 WL 3443504, at *3 (N.D.\n\n Cal. Dec. 1, 2025).\n\n N.\u200b Deposition Topic No. 2\n\n Deposition Topic No. 2 requests a witness knowledgeable about \u201cThe NVIDIA sample Source\n\n Code You use, in whole or in part, to conduct computations.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 22. Again, \u201cconduct\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 17 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 25 of 27\n\n\n computations\u201d is breathtakingly broad, and could include even personal employee computers. Again,\n\n Neural does not define \u201csample\u201d but does define \u201cSource Code,\u201d very broadly. Id. at 21. Again, Neural\n\n did not provide a time limitation for this topic. Again, this topic is \u201cunworkable,\u201d as it would \u201crequire a\n\n witness to memorize reams of detailed information concerning lengthy periods of time\u201d at a level of\n\n detail that \u201cmakes it unlikely that any human being could be prepared to testify competently to the\n\n scope.\u201d Morris, 2025 WL 3443504, at *3.\n\n O.\u200b Deposition Topic No. 3\n\n Deposition Topic No. 3 requests a witness knowledgeable about \u201cYour customizations and/or\n\n data inputs to NVIDIA software that alter the way in which NVIDIA software performs computations\n\n and/or a description of the data input to NVIDIA software on which computations are run.\u201d Docket No.\n\n 1-6 at 22. Again, Neural does not define \u201ccustomizations\u201d or \u201csoftware\u201d but calls for \u201ca description of\n\n the data input to NVIDIA software on which computations are run,\u201d which could include even personal\n\n employee computers. Again, Neural did not provide a time limitation for this topic. Again, this topic is\n\n \u201cunworkable,\u201d as it would \u201crequire a witness to memorize reams of detailed information concerning\n\n lengthy periods of time\u201d at a level of detail that \u201cmakes it unlikely that any human being could be\n\n prepared to testify competently to the scope.\u201d Morris, 2025 WL 3443504, at *3.\n\n P.\u200b Deposition Topic No. 4\n\n Deposition Topic No. 4 requests a witness knowledgeable about \u201cIdentification of Your software\n\n that uses NVIDIA GPUs to perform computations.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 22. Again, this topic is\n\n breathtakingly broad, as \u201csoftware that uses NVIDIA GPUs to perform computations\u201d could include\n\n even employee personal computers with hardware graphics acceleration. Again, Neural did not provide\n\n a time limitation for this topic. Again, this topic is \u201cunworkable,\u201d as it would \u201crequire a witness to\n\n memorize reams of detailed information concerning lengthy periods of time\u201d at a level of detail that\n\n \u201cmakes it unlikely that any human being could be prepared to testify competently to the scope.\u201d Morris,\n\n 2025 WL 3443504, at *3.\n\n Q.\u200b Deposition Topic No. 5\n\n Deposition Topic No. 5 requests testimony on \u201c[u]sing Your software, the ways in which output\n\n data from a GPU computation(s), including intermediate results of GPU computations are stored,\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 18 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 26 of 27\n\n\n referenced by a pointer, transferred, copied, streamed, written back, returned, accumulated, reused, or\n\n made available including asynchronously from NVIDIA GPU memory to CPU memory, host memory,\n\n system memory, storage, display, network, or another memory location before, during, or in parallel with\n\n computations performed using NVIDIA GPUs.\u201d Docket No. 1-6 at 22. Again, Neural does not define\n\n \u201csoftware\u201d or any of the functions in this topic, but the definition of \u201cNVIDIA GPUs\u201d includes more\n\n than 240 devices. Id. at 18-20. Again, this topic is \u201cunworkable,\u201d as it would \u201crequire a witness to\n\n memorize reams of detailed information concerning lengthy periods of time\u201d at a level of detail that\n\n \u201cmakes it unlikely that any human being could be prepared to testify competently to the scope.\u201d Morris,\n\n 2025 WL 3443504, at *3.\n\n Although each of Neural\u2019s requests is individually burdensome, see supra, the Court need not\n\n rule on them individually, as Neural does not press them individually. Instead, Neural seeks an order\n\n compelling OAI International to \u201cproduce nonprivileged documents responsive to Requests for\n\n Production Nos. 1-12 on a rolling basis to begin within 7 days of the Court\u2019s order and to complete\n\n production within twenty-one (21) days of the Court\u2019s order, and (2) compel OpenAI to designate and\n\n produce a knowledgeable witness on Deposition Topics 1-5 within thirty (30) days of the Court\u2019s order.\u201d\n\n Mot. at 12:20-24. Neural does not seek any relief in the alternative, so to deny Neural\u2019s motion, the\n\n Court need only consider the total burden of all seventeen document and deposition topics. That burden\n\n would be more than undue. \u201cThe Ninth Circuit has long held that nonparties subject to discovery\n\n requests deserve extra protection from the courts.\u201d Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., No.\n\n 17-2107, 2017 WL 6209309, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2017) (quoting Lemberg Law LLC v. Hussin, No.\n\n 16-80066, 2016 WL 3231300, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2016)). \u201cNonparty witnesses are powerless to\n\n control the scope of litigation and discovery, and should not be forced to subsidize an unreasonable share\n\n of the costs of a litigation to which they are not a party.\u201d Free Stream Media, 2017 WL 6209309, at *3\n\n (quoting United States v. C.B.S., Inc., 666 F.2d 464, 371-72 (9th Cir. 1982)). \u201cThe subpoenas impose an\n\n undue burden on the subpoenaed parties because the subpoenas force those parties to spend hundreds of\n\n hours compiling and reviewing tens of thousands of documents.\u201d Hosseinzadeh v. Bellevue Park\n\n Homeowners Assn., No. 18-1385, 2020 WL 3271769, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 17, 2020). The Court\n\n should deny Neural\u2019s motion.\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 19 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n \u200b OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 7 Filed 09/02/26 Page 27 of 27\n\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, OAI International respectfully requests that the Court deny Neural\u2019s\n\n motion to compel compliance with its subpoenas.\n\n Date: September 2, 2026 \u200b Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n ___\u200b ___\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)\n Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)\n DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)\n Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 24-221@cases.warrenllp.com\n\n Attorneys for OAI International, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n \u200b \u2013 20 \u2013\u200b Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________\n OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-02T21:43:02.017869-07:00","document_number":"7","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027593949","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Opposition/Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-02T21:40:25.484162-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T08:25:16.341854-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-02","time_filed":"21:34:16","entry_number":7,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-02.002","pacer_sequence_number":20,"description":"OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 1 MOTION ) filed byOAI International, Inc.. (Warren, Matthew) (Filed on 9/2/2026) (Entered: 09/02/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476759239/","id":476759239,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492331740/","id":492331740,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-02T20:54:21.820125-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-02T20:54:21.820141-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance/Substitution/Change/Withdrawal of Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-02T20:54:21.808311-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-02T22:07:32.986100-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-02","time_filed":"21:46:35","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476757407/","id":476757407,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74661488/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492329879/","id":492329879,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74661488/6/neural-ai-llc-v-oai-international-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-02T19:40:56.446483-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-02T19:40:56.446498-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"6","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-02T19:40:56.392069-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-02T19:40:56.406585-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":6,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance filed by Matthew S. Warren on behalf of OAI International, Inc. (Warren, Matthew) (Filed on 9/2/2026) (Entered: 09/02/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=74661488&page_size=40"}